practical design guide on seismic detailing for concrete ... · in general, local reinforced...

PRACTICAL DESIGN GUIDE ON SEISMIC DETAILING

FOR CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN HONG KONG

TECHNICAL GUIDE

Submitted by SU Kai Leung

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Hong Kong

2

Disclaimer

The information presented by the Construction Industry Council in this publication has been prepared for

the purpose of general information only and does not in any way constitute recommendations or

professional advice. While every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to ensure the

accuracy of the information contained in this publication, this information should not be used or relied

upon for any specific application without investigation and verification as to its accuracy, suitability and

applicability by a competent professional person. The Construction Industry Council, its officers and

employees, and the authors and editors of this publication, give no warranties and make no

representations in relation to the information provided herein, and to the extent permitted by law, (a) will

not be held liable or responsible in any way, and (b) expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility, for

any loss or damage, costs or expenses incurred in connection with this publication by any person, whether

that person is the purchaser of this publication or not. Without limitation, this includes loss, damage, costs

and expenses incurred as a result of the negligence of the authors, editors or publishers. The information

contained within this publication should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent due diligence,

or professional or legal advice, and in this regard the services of a competent professional person or

persons should be sought.

3

Foreword

The Construction Industry Council (CIC) was formed on 1st February 2007 in accordance with the

Construction Industry Council Ordinance (Cap. 587) in Hong Kong. The main functions of the CIC are to

forge consensus on long-term strategic issues, to convey the industry's needs and aspirations to the

Government and to provide a communication channel through which the Government can solicit advice

on all construction-related matters.

The CIC Research Fund was established in September 2012 in order to enhance the efficiency and

competitiveness of the local construction industry. The CIC Research Fund encourages research and

development activities as well as applications of innovative techniques that directly meet the needs of the

industry. Moreover, it also promotes the establishment of standards and good practice for the construction

industry, now and into the future.

This Technical Guide aims to promote knowledge in relation to practical and optimal seismic reinforced

concrete (RC) to the Hong Kong construction industry with a strong emphasis on safety, effectiveness,

efficiency and buildability. This Guide first quantifies the seismic deformability demands of typical RC

building systems such as walls, frames and dual systems. Appropriate proportioning and seismic detailing

requirements with reference to the local code of practice are then recommended for each system so as to

ensure that seismic deformation capacity is higher than the expected demands of such RC components as

walls, coupling beams, floor beams and columns. Optimal seismic detailing can be achieved by making

savings on unnecessary construction materials and processes.

The main features of this Guide include:

1. the seismic drift predictions, expressed in terms of drift ratio and beam chord rotation, with return

periods of 475 and 2475 years, of typical RC building components including walls, frames and

dual systems;

2. the specification of both inter-storey and distortional inter-storey drift ratio demands, as the latter

is applicable to control over the seismic deformation of buildings with transfer structures;

3. recommendations for the prescriptive seismic detailing requirements for common types of RC

buildings in HK;

4. the provision of ultimate drift ratio prediction formulas for beams, columns and walls validated

with test data, from which engineers may estimate member sizes and determine loading and

detailing requirements to suit performance criteria prescribed in the performance-based seismic

design; and

5. the recommendation of simplified beam-column joint details.

4

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following practitioners and academics for their assistance in the

preparation and review of this Guide.

Ir Dr Goman Ho Arup

Ir Dr Don Ho Arup

Ir Dr Kent Hou Arup

Richard Lee Yau Lee Construction Company Limited

Dr Chien-Liang Lee Xiamen University of Technology

Qifang Liu The University of Hong Kong

Daniel Looi The University of Hong Kong

Dr Zuanfeng Pan Tongji University

Dr Hing-Ho Tsang Swinburne University of Technology

5

Table of contents

Disclaimer ……… 3

Foreword ……… 4

Acknowledgements ……… 5

Table of contents ……… 6

1. INTRODUCTION ……… 8

1.1 Background ……… 8

1.2 Scope ……… 8

1.3 Limitations

1.4 Way forward

……… 9

1.5 Terms and definitions ……… 9

1.6 Symbols ……… 11

1.7 Concrete material ……… 13

1.8 Evaluation of seismic deformation demands ……… 13

1.8.1 Earthquake response spectra ……… 13

1.8.2 Structural system ……… 15

1.8.3 Structural modelling ……… 16

1.8.4 Effective stiffness ……… 17

1.8.5 Seismic displacement demand ……… 18

1.8.6 Type of deformations ……… 20

1.8.7 Inter-storey drift ratio, distortional inter-storey drift ratio and beam

chord rotation demands

……… 22

1.7.8 Seismic ductility design principles ……… 24

1.9 References ……… 26

2. WALL SYSTEMS ……… 28

2.1 Scope ……… 28

2.2 Detailing considerations ……… 28

2.3 Structural walls ……… 30

2.4 Coupling beams ……… 37

2.5 Columns ……… 39

2.6 Frame beams ……… 41

2.7 Beam-column joints ……… 43


3. DUAL SYSTEMS ……… 47

3.1 Scope ……… 47


3.3 Structural walls ……… 50

3.4 Ductile coupling beams ……… 54

3.5 Ductile columns ……… 55

3.6 Ductile frame beams ……… 60


3.8 Drift ratio design formulas for rectangular walls ……… 65


4. FRAME SYSTEMS ……… 67

4.1 Scope ……… 67


4.3 Ductile columns ……… 69

4.4 Frame beams ……… 73

6


4.6 Drift ratio design formulas for columns and beams ……… 79


7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The main goals of earthquake-resistant design are to attain a structure with sufficient strength, stiffness

and deformability to prevent collapse under a rare earthquake, and to remain operational after an

occasional earthquake and undamaged during a frequent earthquake. Hong Kong is located in a region of

low-to-moderate seismicity. In general, local reinforced concrete (RC) building structures – even those

lacking seismic design and detailing – are able to resist frequent earthquakes without incurring damage.

During an occasional earthquake, almost all RC buildings respond within an elastic or near elastic range,

with the exception of certain flexible low-rise RC frames which may respond inelastically and experience

repairable damage to structural and non-structural components.

When tall buildings in Hong Kong are subjected to rare earthquake loads, the drift ratio demand is often

limited due to the saturation of displacement demands within the long period range of the design spectra.

These buildings typically respond in an elastic or near elastic range and, as such, ductile detailing and

design for most of the structural components (except those adjoining transfer structures) may not be

required. The primary seismic design objective of tall buildings is to provide sufficient strength to avoid

the kind of premature brittle failure associated with the shear or compressive failure that occurs during a

rare earthquake situation.

For low or medium rise RC buildings subjected to rare earthquake loads, the deformation demand is

generally much higher. However, it is both impractical and uneconomical to design all such buildings to

respond in the elastic range. Earthquake-resistant design is achieved by allowing yielding to take place in

certain structural members. Appropriate proportioning and detailing of such structural members and joints

are required if these buildings are to resist the force and deformation demands inflicted by the combined

effects of gravity and seismic loads.

When comparing local seismic demands with those of historical destructive earthquakes, the seismic

displacement and ductility demands encountered in Hong Kong are expected to be relatively small. The

high ductility RC detailing commonly adopted in such high seismicity regions as New Zealand, the

Western US and Japan are not appropriate for Hong Kong, with its low-to-moderate seismicity.

Furthermore, tall buildings with heights exceeding 100 m are widely constructed in Hong Kong. The

unique structural systems and seismic responses of buildings in Hong Kong warrant the development of

specialised seismic detailing to suit local conditions.

1.2 Scope

The objective of this Guide is to evaluate and propose the seismic detailing requirements for typical

monolithically cast-in-situ and equivalent monolithic precast RC buildings with a building height not

exceeding 300 m in Hong Kong. The precast RC structural system referred to in this Guide should have a

strength and deformability capacity equivalent to that provided by a comparable monolithic RC structure.

Covered herein are detailing provisions for:

1. Low-to-high rise buildings with wall systems

8

2. Low-to-high rise buildings with dual systems

3. Low-to-medium rise buildings with frame systems

The tables and figures provided summarise the required provisions for the members considered. Each

table contains code-prescribed detailing requirements with cross-references to the appropriate clause

numbers of the Code of Practice of Structural Use of Concrete (BD 2013), if any. Additional provisions

recommended for achieving the intended seismic deformation capacity are highlighted with bold fonts.

1.3 Limitations

The detailing provisions provided are only applicable to the design of typical buildings in Hong Kong,

with deformation demands not exceeding the prescribed drift ratio limits listed in Table 1.6 and non-

ductile actions being duly undertaken so as to avoid premature failure (such as by way of the shear or

crushing failure of concrete). The detailing provisions provided in this Guide include some nominal

effects concerning the twisting of building and additional deformation associated with transfer structures.

However, increased seismic deformation demands resulting from significant torsional effects,

complicated transfer systems and topographic effects should be assessed individually. Non-linear time

history analysis is recommended for estimating the actual deformation demands of these buildings.

1.4 Way forward

The Buildings Department (BD) is concurrently engaging a consultant to develop a new seismic design

code to provide seismic-resistant building design standards and enhance the structural safety of buildings

in the event of earthquakes in Hong Kong. During the course of the research project, the draft guidelines

have been sent to relevant parties including BD’s consultants, relevant contractor and academia for

comments. The draft guide has already incorporated their comments. As the way forward, the guide

could be sent to BD for their consideration in incorporation into its new seismic design code.

1.5 Terms and definitions

The following terms are used in this Guide with the following meanings:

axial load ratio

axial compressive force divided by the section area and the expected cylinder concrete strength

beam chord rotation

rotation between the chord connecting the member end to the point of contraflexure and the tangent at the

member end (see Fig. 1.1)

distortional inter-storey drift ratio

shear deformation component of the inter-storey drift ratio

dual system

9

structural system in which support for vertical loads is mainly provided by a spatial frame and resistance

to lateral loads is contributed to in part by the frame system and in part by structural walls (coupled,

uncoupled or core)

frame system

structural system in which both vertical and lateral loads are mainly resisted by spatial frames whose

shear resistance at the building base exceeds 60% of the total shear resistance of the whole structural

system

high rise building

building with a height greater than 50 m and not exceeding 300 m

inter-storey drift ratio

relative horizontal displacement of two adjacent floors divided by the floor height

low-to-medium rise building

building with a height not exceeding 50 m

shear span

member’s end moment divided by end shear along the same considered plane

shear span-to-depth ratio

shear span divided by the depth of the section along the shear considered

wall system

structural system in which both vertical and lateral loads are mainly resisted by vertical structural walls

(coupled, uncoupled or core), whose shear resistance at the building base exceeds 60% of the total shear

resistance of the whole structural system

θb

θb

Figure 1.1 Beam chord rotation (a) cantilever example and (b) frame example

(a) (b)

10

1.6 Symbols

The following symbols are used in this Guide with the following meanings:

Ag Sectional area

Av Shear area of a section

b, bb Beam width

bo,ho Dimensions of the confined core to the centre-line of the link in a beam

bi Centre-line spacing along the section’s perimeter of the longitudinal bars which

are engaged by a link corner or a cross-tie

bj Lateral dimension of joint

bw Thickness of wall

d Effective depth of section

di Depth of the soil layer

Ec Young’s modulus of concrete

f’c,k Characteristic cylinder strength of concrete

f’c,m Mean cylinder strength of concrete

fcu,k Characteristic cube strength of concrete

fcu,m Mean cube strength of concrete

fyw,k Characteristic yield strength of side bar

fyh,k Characteristic yield strength of horizontal reinforcement

fyt,m Mean yield strength of transverse (or hoop) reinforcement

fyl Service stress in longitudinal reinforcement

fy1,m Mean yield strength of longitudinal (or vertical) reinforcement

fy11,m Mean yield strength of longitudinal tensile reinforcement

fy12,m Mean yield strength of longitudinal compression reinforcement

fyh,m Mean yield strength of horizontal reinforcement

fy1w,m Mean yield strength of longitudinal tensile reinforcement in web

fyv,m Mean yield strength of shear reinforcement

Fu Peak loading capacity

Gc Shear modulus of concrete

hc, bc Sectional dimensions of a column

h Depth of beam

hi Floor height of the ith floor

hw Depth of wall

H Storey height

Hb Height of building

lcr Extent of critical zone

Ig Sectional second moment of area

J Polar moment of area

ky Initial cracked effective stiffness

ko Intact stiffness

ku Lower-bound effective stiffness

lo Length of tension lap

Lv Shear span

M End moment

Mb End moment of coupling beam

Ncr Axial compression ratio

Nult Factored gravity axial load

Nwork Unfactored axial load

RSA Response spectral acceleration

11

RSAmax Maximum response spectral acceleration

RSD Response spectral displacement

sb Spacing of side bars

sh Spacing of horizontal reinforcement

st Spacing of transverse (or hoop) reinforcement

st1, st2 and st3 Dimensions of confined zone

sv Spacing of shear reinforcement

svj Spacing of the vertical joint shear reinforcement

s Clear spacing between tension reinforcement

T Structural period

Ti Site initial natural period

T1 First corner period

T2 Second corner period

Teff Effective structural period

To Structural period using cracked stiffness

v shear stress capacity of a section

V End shear

Vb End shear of coupling beam

Vi Initial shear wave velocity of the soil layer

xi ith floor lateral displacement

β Period shift factor βb Redistribution ratio

Δeff Effective displacement

Δy Yield deformation

Δu Ultimate deformation

Δ1, Δ2 Minimum and maximum lateral deformations

μd Displacement ductility capacity

ρl Area ratio of longitudinal reinforcement

Ρh Area ratio of horizontal reinforcement

ρt Area ratio of transverse reinforcement

ρv Area ratio of shear reinforcement

ρl1 Area ratio of longitudinal tensile reinforcement

ρ21 Area ratio of longitudinal compression reinforcement

ρlw Area ratio of longitudinal tensile reinforcement in web

ρt,vol volumatic ratio of hoop reinforcement

l Diameter of the longitudinal bar

l,max Maximum diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

l,min Minimum diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

h Diameter of horizontal reinforcement

t Diameter of transverse reinforcement

θ Inter-storey drift ratio

θb Beam chord rotation

θd Distortional inter-storey drift ratio

θf Local floor rotation

1 Total reinforcement ratio of tension and web longitudinal reinforcement

2 Total reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal reinforcement

l Mechanical ratio of vertical reinforcement

h Mechanical ratio of horizontal reinforcement

t Mechanical ratio of hoop reinforcement

12

1.7 Concrete material

The design concrete grades considered in this Guide are generally based on C30 to C60 for cast-in-situ

RC buildings and C30 to C50 for the equivalent monolithic precast RC buildings. High strength concrete

with a concrete grade above C60 may be applied when the member considered remains elastic under rare

earthquake actions. The requirements on all confinement, links, ties and minimal reinforcement should be

increased by fcu,k/60.

1.8 Evaluation of seismic deformation demands

The seismic deformation demands of an RC building primarily depend on the site conditions, the return

period of the earthquake, the ground motions and the structural system considered. In order to accurately

estimate seismic deformation demands, computer models offering appropriate simulation techniques

should be adopted. In the following sections, the factors affecting seismic deformation demands will be

presented.

1.8.1 Earthquake response spectra

The dynamic characteristics of an earthquake can be conveniently quantified by way of an earthquake

response spectrum. In this Guide, rare earthquake response spectra (with a return period of 2475 years, i.e.

a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and occasional earthquake response spectra (with a return

period of 475 years, i.e. a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) developed based on typical site

conditions in Hong Kong are employed for the evaluation of the seismic response of buildings.

The site initial natural period Ti can be estimated based on geophysical or geotechnical measurements

with the use of Equation (1.1) where di (in m) is the thickness of the individual soil layer and Vi (in m/s) is

the initial shear wave velocity.

n

i i

ii

V

dT

1

4 (1.1)

The response spectra are separated into four types according to Ti. The site classification is shown in

Table 1.1 in which Site 0 is a rock site and Sites 1, 2 and 3 are soil sites with increasing soil depths and

decreasing soil stiffnesses.

Table 1.1 Site classification

Site Period Site Classification

Ti ≤ 0.15 s Site 0 Rock Site

0.15 < Ti ≤ 0.3 s Site 1

Soil Site 0.3 < Ti ≤ 0.7 s Site 2

0.7 < Ti ≤ 5 s Site 3

The four types of rare earthquake and occasional earthquake response spectra, with a 5% damping ratio

for Hong Kong in the ADRS (acceleration-displacement response spectra) and RSA (response spectrum

acceleration) formats, are presented in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3 respectively. The corner periods of the rare

earthquake and occasional earthquake response spectra are summarised in Tables 1.2 and 1.3 respectively.

13

The spectral displacements of rock sites and soil sites can be obtained from Equations (1.2) and (1.3)

respectively. For details on the construction of the design response spectra, it is recommended that the

reader review the works of Su et al. (2015a).

144.0198102/mm:s0.5

98102/mm:

98102/mm:

2

maxT2

2

1max21

2

max1

TTRSARSDTT

TTRSARSDTTT

TRSARSDTT

T

T

(1.2)

98102/mm:s0.5

98102/mm:

98102/mm:

2

21maxT2

2

1max21

2

max1

TTRSARSDTT

TTRSARSDTTT

TRSARSDTT

T

T

(1.3)

As shown in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3, the seismic demands of occasional earthquakes are around 50 to 60% of

those of rare earthquakes, while the demands of rock sites are in general about 20 to 40% of those of soil

sites.

Table 1.2 RSAmax and corner periods (T1 and T2) for the rare earthquake response spectra

Site types RSAmax (g) T1 (s) T2 (s)

Site 0 0.56 0.23 1.00

Site 1 1.50 0.30 0.55

Site 2 1.20 0.45 0.80

Site 3 0.65 0.75 2.00

Table 1.3 RSAmax and corner periods (T1 and T2) for the occasional earthquake response spectra

Site types RSAmax (g) T1 (s) T2 (s)

Site 0 0.28 0.23 1.00

Site 1 0.80 0.32 0.51

Site 2 0.75 0.42 0.67

Site 3 0.35 0.78 1.85

14

1.8.2 Structural system

The seismic deformation demands of three types of RC structural systems as shown in Figs. 1.4 to 1.6

with various building heights Hb have been investigated in this Guide.

1. Low-to-high rise buildings with wall systems (Hb ≤ 300 m)

2. Low-to-high rise buildings with dual systems (Hb ≤ 300 m)

3. Low-to-medium rise buildings with frame systems (Hb ≤ 50 m)

These represent the most common building formats in Hong Kong.

(a) (b)

Figure 1.3 Four types of occasional earthquake response spectra for Hong Kong presented in

(a) ADRS format and (b) RSA format

(a) (b)

Figure 1.2 Four types of rare earthquake response spectra for Hong Kong presented in

(a) ADRS format and (b) RSA format

15

Torsional irregularity, in this Guide, is defined as the maximum to minimum lateral floor deformation

ratio Δ2/Δ1 as illustrated in Fig. 1.7. The maximum value of Δ2/Δ1 considered in this Guide is 2.3.

1.8.3 Structural modelling

Three-dimensional building models are generally required for all analyses and evaluations, in order to

represent the spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of a structure to an extent that is adequate for

the calculation of the significant features of the building’s dynamic response. Structural models shall

Figure 1.6 Dual system

Figure 1.5 Frame system with a strong-column and weak-beam arrangement

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1.4 Wall systems (a) uncoupled, (b) coupled, (c) wall-frame and (d) core wall with frame

extreme translational and

torsional deformation of the plan

Figure 1.7 Extreme torsional plan rotation

Δ2 Δ1

undeformed plan

16

incorporate realistic estimates of stiffness and damping, considering the anticipated levels of excitation

and damage. In addition to the designated elements and components of the lateral force resisting system,

all other elements that in combination significantly contribute to or affect the total or local stiffness of the

building shall be included in the mathematical model. Expected material properties shall be used

throughout. The stiffness properties of reinforced concrete shall consider the effects of cracking on

stiffness. For further reference on local concrete material properties, including the Young’s modulus and

expected cube strength, interested readers can refer to Su (2015a).

1.8.4 Effective stiffness

In order to accurately predict the seismic response and deformation demands of buildings, realistic

member stiffnesses shall be used in structural models with a consideration of the anticipated level of

excitation and damage. The effective stiffness approaches most widely used in various international

design codes and standards (ASCE, 2007; CSA, 2004; PEER/ATC-72-1, 2010; LATBSDC, 2011; ACI

318, 2014; BSI, 2005) are adopted in this Guide. The recommended upper-bound and lower-bound

effective stiffnesses of various RC components are shown in Tables 1.4 and 1.5 respectively, and were

determined after reviewing the typical ranges of axial load ratios, concrete grades, vertical steel ratios and

wall lengths in Hong Kong conditions (Su et al., 2014a). Torsional stiffnesses of RC members are

particularly low (Tavio and Teng, 2004); hence, a recommended effective cracked torsional stiffness (for

compatibility torsion) is also included in the tables for completeness. Definitions of ductility capacity,

initial cracked effective stiffness and lower-bound effective stiffness are presented in Fig. 1.8. The

ductility capacity of the flexural mode (desired failure mode) of each structural member considered in the

building model can be determined by computing the ratio of the upper-bound (or initial) effective

stiffness to the lower-bound effective stiffness. Such ratio could be further increased if members with

higher ductility capacity are adopted in the design.

Table 1.4 Initial cracked member stiffness properties (EcIc)

Type of Member Member’s action

Flexural Axial Shear Torsion

Structural Walls 0.60EcIg 0.60EcAg 0.50GcAg N.A.

Conventional RC

Coupling Beams 0.35EcIg N.A. 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

Transfer Structures 0.35EcIg N.A. 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

Diaphragms 0.25EcIg N.A. N.A. N.A.

Moment Frame

Beams 0.35EcIg N.A. 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

Moment Frame

Columns 0.70EcIg 0.60EcAg 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

N.A. means not applicable.

17

Table 1.5. Lower-bound stiffness properties (EcIc) for highly stressed members

Type of Member Member’s action

Flexural Axial Shear Torsion

Structural Walls 0.30EcIg 0.30EcAg 0.25GcAg N.A.

Conventional RC

Coupling Beams 0.20EcIg N.A. 0.25GcAg 0.1GcJ

Transfer Structures 0.35EcIg N.A. 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

Diaphragms 0.25EcIg N.A. N.A. N.A.

Moment Frame

Beams 0.12EcIg N.A. 0.25GcAg 0.1GcJ

Moment Frame

Columns 0.25EcIg 0.6EcAg 0.50GcAg 0.1GcJ

1.8.5 Seismic displacement demand

Deformation is a critical parameter by which to assess the degree of seismic damage of structural

components and structural systems. Using the capacity spectrum method (Freeman, 2004), the seismic

displacement demand (Δeff) of a low rise (or first mode dominant) building at the effective building height

(≈2Hb/3) can be estimated by the intersection of the capacity curve and the demand spectrum, as shown in

Fig. 1.9. The capacity of the structure, which is represented by a nonlinear force-displacement curve, can

be obtained by way of pushover analysis. The demand of the earthquake ground motion is described by a

response spectrum, as shown in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3. The radial lines emitting from the origin of the capacity

spectrum diagram represent the constant period lines. The figure shows that the seismic displacement

demand depends on the effective structural period (Teff), which is equal to β To where β ≥1 is the period

Force

Fu

0.8Fu

0.75Fu

ko

Δy

Initial

cracked

effective

stiffness

ky

Δu

Lower-bound effective stiffness

ku

IDEALISED

BILINEAR

CURVE

LOAD

DEFLECTION

CURVE

Displacement ductility capacity =y

ud

Deformation

Figure 1.8 Definitions of member ductility capacity, initial cracked effective stiffness and lower-

bound effective stiffness

18

shift factor and To is the structural period from the initial cracked stiffness model. It is worth noting that

the lateral stiffness of a building is primarily controlled by the construction material, the structural system

and the building’s height, which are often predetermined by the client and design constraints. Fig. 1.10

shows the initial fundamental periods of RC buildings in Hong Kong obtained from in-situ dynamic tests

(Su et al., 2015b). These results clearly illustrate a strong correlation between the structural period and the

building height. As a result, once the building height, structural system, construction materials and design

return period of an earthquake have been specified, the seismic spectral displacement demands of

buildings located within a particular site would only vary within a narrow range.

The primary seismic design objectives are to avoid premature brittle failure and to accommodate seismic

deformation demands. For low rise frame buildings, one may evenly distribute high deformation demands

to different floors using the strong-column weak-beam design principle to reduce the maximum inter-

storey drift ratio (IDR) demand (θmax) and hence protect gravity load bearing structural components from

excessive non-linear deformation. For high-rise regular RC buildings (Hb > 50 m), as the seismic drift

Δeff

bH3

2 θmax

bilinear idealisation

Spec

tral

acc

eler

atio

n (

g)

Spectral displacement (m)

Δeff Δy Δu

capacity curve

demand spectrum

Figure 1.9 Deformation demand

seismic deformation

of a building

T1

T2

Teff

To

Mean

Lower-bound

Upper-bound

Figure 1.10 Initial first fundamental period of buildings in Hong Kong

19

ratio demands are not high, special structural arrangements for minimising IDR are not required in

general.

1.8.6 Types of deformation

Deformations can be classified into three types (i) overall building movements, (ii) storey drifts and other

internal relative deformations and (iii) rotation of structural components and elements.

Overall building movement can be quantified by roof drift, which enables a qualitative assessment of

building performance. Although total building deformation can provide some measure of the significance

of P-Δ effects on the response of a building, this is of limited value since structural damage is usually

associated with local deformations and distortions.

Inter-storey drift, which is defined as the relative horizontal displacement of two adjacent floors at a given

instant in time, is suitable for the assessment of damage to structural and non-structural components of

buildings that have not undergone significant floor rotations.

Where vertical deformations occur in the columns and/or walls below, the upper levels of a tall building

are rotated as a whole, as illustrated in Fig. 1.11(a). Such rigid body rotation can significantly contribute

to the IDR (or θ) but does not induce any damage. The distortional inter-storey drift ratio (DIDR or θd),

which is calculated by subtracting the floor rotation (θf) from the IDR, is an appropriate measure of the

in-plane shear deformation of a structural wall or cladding panel. This ratio is particularly suitable for

quantifying local distortions and deformations induced by gravity and seismic loads. For regular high-rise

θ = (xi+1 - xi)/hi is the IDR

θf is the local floor rotation angle

θd = θ - θf is the DIDR

θ θd

θf

Figure 1.11 Inter-storey drift ratio and distortional inter-storey drift ratio of (a) a high rise

building and (b) a low rise frame building

Distortional inter-storey drift ratio θd ≈ θ

θ θd ≈ θ

θf ≈ 0

xi

hi

xi+1

Distortional inter-storey drift ratio θd < θ

(a)

(b)

20

buildings, the DIDR is usually smaller than the IDR. For regular low-rise frame buildings, the DIDR is

similar to the IDR (see Fig. 1.11(b)) since the floor rotation is generally small.

DIDR is capable of measuring the shear deformation of walls above or below a transfer structure. As

illustrated in Fig. 1.12(a), a transfer structure is deflected under gravity loads. Although the IDR above

the transfer structure is almost zero, the DIDR is not negligible due to the floor rotation. Such DIDR can

reach around 1/500 (or 0.2%) under gravity loads for buildings in Hong Kong. This gravity load induced

shear deformation can use up 40% of the shear deformability of conventionally reinforced (non-ductile)

shear walls and create huge bending and shear force demands on the wall. As a result, only limited shear

and deformation capacities are left with which to resist seismic loads. This explains why transfer structure

buildings are more vulnerable to seismic attacks. To enhance the seismic performance of transfer

structure buildings in Hong Kong, designers should aim to limit the local rotations of transfer structures at

the base of shear walls to not greater than 1/1000 under gravity loads.

As a result of such local rotation, the high shear force induced in walls significantly reduces its shear span.

Thus, the seismic response of a slender shear wall, near its base, is similar to that of a squat wall under

combined axial and shear loads. For details on how to reduce shear concentration effects, the interested

reader may refer to Su and Cheng (2009) and Tang and Su (2015).

An alternative building configuration which can also generate significant local shear and deformation

demands at basement levels is that of a tower and basement with structural walls penetrating down to the

foundation level, as shown in Fig. 1.12(b). Despite the small IDR, the DIDR is large due to the floor

rotation above the basement level. Again, the DIDR but not the IDR is capable of quantifying this shear

concentration effect. It is noted that the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, USA (CTBUH,

2008) and the Department of Housing and Urban-rural Development of Guangdong Province, PRC

(DHUDGP, 2013) also recommend using DIDR to assess the seismic performance of tall buildings.

Beam chord rotation (BCR or θb) is defined as the rotation between the chord connecting the member end

to the point of contraflexure and the tangent at the member end. It can be used to quantify the rotational

deformability of floor beams and coupling beams, as shown in Fig. 1.13. Many computer programs do

transfer structure

θd ≈ -θf θ ≈ 0

θf

θd=θ - θf θ

θf

Figure 1.12 Distortional deformations due to (a) transfer structure and (b) backstay effect

(a) (b)

21

not output BCR directly. For an elastic analysis considering negligible gravity loads, BCR can be

estimated from the joint moment Mb and joint shear Vb of the beam using Equation (1.4).

vcvcc

vbb

AGLIE

LM

1

3 (1.4)

where Lv = Mb/Vb is the shear span of the beam, Ec and Gc are the Young’s modulus and shear modulus of

concrete, Ic is the cracked moment of the area (see Tables 1.4 and 1.5 ) and Av is the shear area of the

section (for rectangular section, Av = 0.8Ag).

1.8.7 Inter-storey drift ratio, distortional inter-storey drift ratio and beam chord rotation demands

Linear and nonlinear dynamic methods together with the performance based seismic design principle

(LATBSDC, 2011) have been used in this Guide to evaluate the seismic deformation demands of RC

buildings in Hong Kong. The numerical methods employed and their numerical results are briefly

described herein. The use of a simple Timoshenko beam for modelling the dynamic behaviour of a real

building has been validated by Boutin et al. (2005) and Su et al. (2016). By calibrating the first and

second translational frequencies of buildings using ambient vibration tests, the uniform Timoshenko

beam model is capable of simulating higher mode shapes and modal frequencies. Su (2015b) and Su et al.

(2015b) integrated the Timoshenko beam model with modal response spectrum analysis in order to assess

the seismic performance of buildings with wall, frame and dual systems subjected to occasional and rare

earthquakes in Hong Kong. This generalised tool can provide a rapid check of the seismic performance of

an immense volume of existing and new buildings. The main assumptions adopted in these analyses are

listed below:

1. The building is located on a flat horizontal site;

2. The building remains elastic and is modelled using the initial cracked stiffness model;

3. The building is regular and has no transfer structure;

4. Shear failure is avoided for all RC members; and

5. The extreme torsional irregularity expressed in terms of Δ2/Δ1 is not greater than 2.3.

The maximum BCR, IDR and DIDR demands under occasional and rare earthquake loads for RC

buildings with wall and dual systems, with a consideration of the worst soil site conditions, are

summarised in Table 1.6.

As low rise buildings are often subjected to large inelastic deformation under rare earthquake actions, the

capacity spectrum method (Freeman, 2004), which can provide a simplified means by which to assess the

structural integrity of a building by evaluating its inelastic seismic demands, is used. In this Guide, a

Figure 1.13 Chord rotation of (a) a floor beam and (b) a coupling beam

b

wall pier

wall pier

coupling

beam

floor beam column column

b

(a) (b)

22

beam sway mechanism rather than a column sway mechanism (see Fig. 1.14) is adopted in order to avoid

soft storey failure and to reduce the maximum IDR demands. Furthermore, the yield IDR of RC columns

and the extreme torsional irregularity are taken as 1% and 2.3 respectively. The effects of damping on the

reduction of seismic demands (Priestley, 2007) have been considered. It should be noted that the strong-

column and weak-beam arrangement should be applied to the seismic design of low-rise frame buildings

so as to promote a beam sway mechanism. The maximum BCR, IDR and DIDR demands for low-rise

frame structures of more than one storey, evaluated through the capacity spectrum method, are shown in

Table 1.6, the results of which demonstrate that the seismic IDR demands of low rise RC frame buildings

are more pronounced and larger than those of high rise RC wall buildings.

Table 1.6. Maximum rotation and drift ratio demands

Maximum rotation and drift ratio demands (%)

Occasional earthquake Rare earthquake

BCR IDR DIDR BCR IDR DIDR

Wall system, Hb ≤ 300 m 0.60 0.55 0.25 1.00 0.90 0.40

Dual system, Hb ≤ 300 m 1.00 0.80 0.80 2.00 1.50 1.50

Frame system, Hb ≤ 50 m 1.40 1.40 1.40 3.00 3.00 3.00

It is noted that for non-ductile actions (such as shear in an RC wall), little-to-no inelastic deformation is

permissible and component adequacy should be based on force-based checking in order to ensure that the

maximum earthquake demands do not exceed nominal capacities. The tabulated seismic deformation

demands should not be adopted for the subsequent detailing design if such non-ductile actions have not

been thoroughly checked. If a building with a wall system is designed with a transfer structure and the in-

plane local rotations of the transfer structure induced by gravity loads have been limited to 0.1%, in the

onerous site condition and building configuration, the DIDR as shown in Table 1.6 may have to be

further increased by 0.17% (or 0.25%) under occasional earthquake (or rare earthquake) for the detailing

design of the shear walls and columns adjoining the transfer structure.

A secant-stiffness-based incremental response spectrum model that takes into account the yielded

properties (cracked effective stiffnesses) of structural members during the incremental substitution

procedure has been developed (Su et al., 2014a) for the analysis of high rise buildings with limited

IDR1

IDR2

(a) (b)

plastic hinge IDR1 < IDR2

Figure 1.14 Plastic mechanisms (a) beam sway and (b) column sway

23

inelastic deformations under earthquake loading. Using this model, Su et al. (2014b) and Leung (2015)

respectively analysed a 42-storey residential building with a transfer plate and a 20-storey torsional

irregular commercial building under rare earthquake loading. Both buildings were primarily supported by

structural walls. The maximum IDR of the commercial building was found to be 0.9% on a deep soil site

which is comparable to the drift limit of a wall system, as shown in Table 1.6. Leung (2015) further

found that some RC wall members would be overstressed if 2% of the longitudinal reinforcement steel

ratio was used. For those overstressed RC structural members, their performance could be improved by

properly modifying the structural form to minimise the torsional response, adjusting the member

dimensions or increasing the reinforcement steel ratios of certain critical members. Furthermore, some

wall members might be subjected to high transient tensile loads during rare earthquake actions. However,

such tensile forces are deemed acceptable to no-collapse checking as they cause only cracking and not the

compressive failure and collapse of the wall members.

As low rise buildings under rare earthquake actions could undergo substantial inelastic deformation, a

rigorously nonlinear time history analysis was also carried out using OpenSees (Open System for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/index.php) software, so as to obtain the

maximum IDR demands for four- to six-storey RC framed buildings (Kong, 2015; Wu, 2015; Suen, 2015).

The computational results demonstrated that the maximum IDR demand for regular buildings without

torsional irregularity was 2.86% which is within the drift limit of 3.0% given in Table 1.6.

It is not recommended that structural walls situated within a dual structural system are supported by a

transfer structure. However, if wall transfer is unavoidable, the DIDR of the wall panel adjacent to the

transfer structure should not exceed the drift ratio limit shown in Table 1.6.

In addition, when the building is located on a sloping site, the seismic response should be amplified

appropriately by incorporating topographical effects (BSI, 2004).

1.8.8 Seismic ductility design principles

The seismic responses of low-rise and high-rise buildings, as illustrated in Fig.1.15, are fundamentally

different. Under occasional or rare earthquakes, the seismic drift ratio demands on high-rise buildings are

relatively small (see Table 1.6), while tall buildings respond within an elastic/near elastic range. Force

reduction due to ductility effects is no longer applicable. The first mode of the building period usually

falls within the displacement controlled (capped) region of the response spectrum, while the second and

third modes of the period may fall within the velocity controlled region of the spectrum. Due to their

higher mode effects, tall buildings can also be subject to substantial acceleration (or force) demands.

Strength rather than ductility or deformability usually governs the members’ design. Sufficient shear

reinforcement should be provided in columns, walls and beams to avoid premature shear failure. As the

force demand of a rare earthquake action is almost double that of an occasional earthquake action, seismic

force checking based on occasional earthquake action is insufficient to meet no-collapse requirements in

the rare earthquake situation. Shear checking related to rare earthquake loads should be explicitly

conducted. To reduce the seismic load, it is advantageous to design a flexible building with longer

fundamental periods. Ductile seismic detailing, apart from that in relation to the adjoining of members

and transfer structures, is generally unnecessary in Hong Kong conditions.

Low-rise buildings likely experience considerable inelastic deformation, particularly during a rare

earthquake situation. Thus, the use of ductile detailing can improve a building’s seismic performance.

24

Global ductile behaviour can help reduce force demands. The degree of inelastic deformation depends on

the designed lateral strength capacity of a building. For a building designed with a lateral strength smaller

than occasional earthquake demands (see Case (A) in Fig. 1.15), the global ductility demand will be very

high under rare earthquake loading. Contrary to this, when the lateral strength of a building is high (see

Cases (B) and (C)), the global ductility demand will be low. Links are provided to not only increase the

shear capacity of structural members but also increase the confinement and hence the ductility of concrete.

For high ductility demand cases, the seismic design principles of strong shear – weak moment, strong

column – weak beam and strong joint – weak member should be adopted to reduce local ductility

demands and avoid the premature failure of structural members.

1st mode

RP = 475 yrs

RP = 2475 yrs

RSA

RSD

2nd mode

Low-rise buildings

High-rise buildings

Figure 1.15 Difference in seismic responses for low-rise and high-rise buildings

Strength

controlled

Deformation

controlled

Case (A)

Case (B)

Case (C)

25

1.9 References

ACI 318 (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary,

ACI Committee 318, USA.

ASCE (2007). ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society

of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Virginia, USA.

BD (2013). Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete, Buildings Department, The Government of

the HKSAR.

Boutin, C, Hans, S, Ibraim, E and Roussillon, P (2005). In situ experiments and seismic analysis of

existing buildings part II: seismic integrity threshold. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

34(12), 1531-46.

BSI (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 3: Assessment and

Retrofitting of Buildings, British Standards Institute, UK.

BSI (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 5: Foundations, Retaining

Structures and Geotechnical Aspects, British Standards Institute, UK.

CSA (2004). CSA A.23.3-04: Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association (CSA),

Ontario.

CTBUH (2008). Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings, Council of Tall

Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, IL.

DHUDGP (2013). Technical specification for concrete structures of tall building, DBJ 15-92-2013,

Department of Housing and Urban-rural Development of Guangdong Province, PRC.

Freeman SA (2004). Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method, ISET Journal of

Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 438, 41 (1): 1-13

Kong LC (2015). Strength Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints, Final Year Project

Report, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

Leung KT (2015). Quantification of Seismic Local Ductility Demand of Structural Members in RC

Buildings, Final Year Project, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

LATBSDC (2011). An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located

in the Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, USA.

PEER/ATC-72-1 (2010). Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall

Buildings, Applied Technology Council/Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Redwood City,

California.

26

Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007), Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures,

IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.

Su RKL and Cheng MH (2009). Earthquake induced shear concentration in shear walls above transfer

structures, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 18(6): 657-671.

Su RKL (2015a). Mechanical properties of local concrete, Annual Concrete Seminar 2015, Concrete:

From Production to Recycling, Standing Committee on Concrete Technology, Civil Engineering and

Development Department, The Government of the HKSAR, 29 April 2015.

Su RKL (2015b). Seismic Demands on RC Tall Buildings in Hong Kong under Rare Earthquake Action,

1-Day Workshop The State-of-the-practice of Tall Building Design and Construction, The American

Society of Civil Engineers, Hong Kong Section, 22 May 2015.

Su RKL, Lee CL, Tsang HH and Tang TO (2014a). Final Report on Provision of Consultancy Services of

Development of Design Reference for Enhanced Ductility Design of Housing Authority Buildings,

Agreement No. CB20130721, Hong Kong Housing Authority, The Government of the HKSAR.

Su RKL, Looi DTW, Tang TO and Law CW (2014b). Performance based seismic design for tall

buildings in Hong Kong, The Proceedings of Advances in Earthquake Engineering, Joint Structural

Division Annual Seminar 2014, 19 May 2014, Hong Kong, p107-131.

Su RKL, Lee CL, He CH, Tsang HH and Law CW (2015a). Rare earthquake response spectra for typical

site conditions in Hong Kong, HKIE Transactions, 22(3): 179-191.

Su RKL, Tang TO, Lee CL and Tsang HH (2015b). Simplified seismic assessment of RC buildings in

Hong Kong under occasional earthquake action, CIC Research Journal, 2: 45-54.

Su RKL, Tang TO and Liu KC (2016). Simplified seismic assessment of tall buildings using non-uniform

Timoshenko beam model in low-to-moderate seismicity regions, Engineering Structures (in press).

Suen KW (2015). Seismic Local Ductility Demand of Structural Members in Low-Rise Buildings, MSc

Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

Tang TO and Su RKL (2015). Gravity-induced shear force in reinforced concrete walls above transfer

structures, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures & Buildings, 168(1): 40-55.

Tavio and Teng S (2004). Effective torsional rigidity of reinforced concrete members, ACI Structural

Journal, 101, p252-260.

Wu WJ (2015). Strength Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints, MSc Thesis, Department

of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

27

2 WALL SYSTEMS

2.1 Scope

The detailing provisions described herein apply to RC buildings with heights not exceeding 300 m, with

structural RC walls acting as the primary earthquake force-resisting system.

Under occasional earthquake, the maximum DIDR demand of regular walled buildings without transfer

structures should not exceed 0.25%. Such a requirement is deemed to be satisfied if the maximum IDR

subjected to occasional earthquake is less than 0.55%.

Under rare earthquake, when no-collapse limit state is explicitly considered, the IDR and DIDR demands

of regular walled buildings are increased to 0.9% and 0.4% respectively.

If a wall system together with a transfer structure is utilised and the in-plane local rotations of the transfer

structure due to gravity loads have been limited to 0.1%, the aforementioned DIDR demands may be

increased to 0.42% under occasional earthquake or 0.65% under rare earthquake for the detailing design

of the shear walls and columns adjoining the transfer structure.

The detailing provisions presented in this Chapter aim to provide sufficient drift ratio capacity for RC

members to cope with the aforementioned deformation demands.

2.2 Detailing considerations

In buildings with RC walls acting as the primary earthquake force-resisting system, the majority portion

of the lateral seismic loads is resisted by the structural walls due to their high lateral stiffness. The seismic

response of a building is controlled by the strength, stiffness and deformability of its RC walls rather than

by the flexible RC columns attached to the wall system. To ensure the survival of the building after a rare

earthquake attack, structural walls should have sufficient strength and deformability to resist the

corresponding seismic demands.

In order to avoid wall shear failure, which may trigger the catastrophic partial or total collapse of a

building, the shear strength of its walls should be designed with sufficient shear area and reinforcement to

resist rare earthquake actions. Currently, the latest design code in Hong Kong (BD, 2013) does not require

the shear checking of RC walls for buildings under combined wind and gravity load effects. The seismic

shear checking of RC walls may follow other international standards or design guidelines such as ACI

318 (2014) and LATBSDC (2011). It should be noted that the National Research Council of Canada

(NRC 2010), the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC, 2011) and the

Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH, 2008) already explicitly require designs to take

account of the seismic shear demand associated with a rare earthquake with a return period of 2475 years.

In view of the widespread structural damage inflicted by the Northridge earthquake, a redundancy

coefficient of 1.3 has been introduced to ASCE 07-02 (ASCE 2002) so as to encourage the design of

more redundant RC shear wall buildings.

28

Despite the strength design, appropriate seismic detailing should be provided to enhance the

deformability of structural walls. The drift capacity of structural walls primarily depends on the failure

mode, the shear span-to-depth ratio (SDR), the axial load ratio (ALR) and the reinforcement

arrangements in place. In order to ensure walls have sufficient deformability against rare earthquake loads,

brittle shear failures should be avoided when conducting no-collapse limit state checks. In other words,

the seismic shear capacity of walls should be higher than the seismic shear demand associated with rare

earthquake loads.

The SDR is defined in Equation (2.1).

wVh

MSDR (2.1)

where M and V are the end moment and shear respectively and hw is the depth of the wall. In general, the

deformability of a wall reduces as the SDR decreases. When the SDR is less than 1.5, the wall usually

fails in shear mode. For coupled shear walls and walls adjoining transfer structures, the shear force

demand is amplified and the SDR of those walls is usually less than one.

In the literature, ALR is defined as

gmc

work

Af

NALR

,

(2.2)

where Nwork is the unfactored axial load, f’c,m is the mean (or expected) cylinder strength of concrete and

Ag is the sectional area of wall. In the Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete (BD 2013), the

axial compression ratio Ncr of ductile walls is limited to

75.045.0 ,

gkcu

ultcr

Af

NN (2.3)

where Nult is the factored gravity axial load and fcu,k is the characteristic cube strength of concrete.

Assuming 1.45 Nwork = Nult, f’c,m = 1.4 f’c,k and f’c,k = 0.85 fcu,k, Equation (2.3) leads to ALR 0.2. Such a

small ALR can minimise the potential risk of the compression failure of walls under severe earthquake

loads and should be adopted in the design of structural walls adjoining transfer structures.

Extensive test results (Greifenhagen and Lestuzzi, 2005; Kuang and Ho, 2007 and 2008) on squat walls

(i.e. SDR ≤ 1.5) with non-seismic detailing (i.e. without boundary element) and ALR ≥ 0.05 demonstrate

that the ultimate drift ratio is generally higher than 0.5%, which is considerably higher than the maximum

DIDR demand (0.4%) for regular wall buildings under rare earthquake loads.

Confined boundary elements are the edge regions of walls with concentrated longitudinal steel and with

confining transverse hoops, and are normally used in shear walls experiencing high compressive stresses

and strains at the end fibre. Besides enhancing the bending and shear strengths of walls, slender cantilever

shear walls with boundary elements behave in a more ductile manner, assuming that the inelastic response

is dominated by flexure at critical yielding sections. Past experimental results have demonstrated that the

use of boundary elements in slender shear walls (SDR > 2, dominated by flexural action) can improve

ductile behaviour (Hube et al., 2014). It is noted that adequately detailed transverse link spacing between

longitudinal bars located at boundaries should be provided in order to avoid potential bar buckling

29

damage when subjected to load reversal (Hilson et al., 2014). Contrary to this, the use of boundary

elements in squat walls or walls with a SDR ≤ 1.5 can only moderately increase shear capacity but not

significantly improve the ductility of walls. However, as walls connected to a transfer structure usually

experience very high seismic and gravity shear demands, a stringent Type 3 confined boundary element,

as stipulated in the Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013 (BD 2013), is recommended.

For other structural components in walled buildings, such as columns and beams together with beam-

column joints, the drift capacities are usually much higher than 0.65% even without seismic detailing

(Xiong, 2001; Lam et al., 2003; Huang, 2003; Li, 2003; Ho, 2003; Kuang and Wong, 2005; Wong and

Kuang, 2008; Leung et al., 2016). These components are not critical if they are properly tied to the

seismically protected wall system.

2.3 Structural walls

The detailing provisions described here refer to conventional RC walls with a length to thickness ratio of

4 or more and in which the section and reinforcement have been designed to resist seismic forces.

The vertical, horizontal and transverse detailing requirements for conventional RC walls are summarised

in Table 2.1. Reinforcement provided for shear strength should be continuous and uniformly distributed

across the shear plane. Uniform distribution of reinforcement across the height and horizontal length of

the wall helps control the width of inclined cracks. For walls subjected to substantial in-plane shear forces,

two layers of reinforcement should be provided in order to reduce the fragmentation and premature

deterioration of the concrete under load reversals into the inelastic range (Fanella, 2007). Furthermore, for

buildings with transfer structures, the definition of critical zones and boundary element requirements for

walls adjoining transfer structure are summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1. Detailing requirements for conventional RC walls

Requirements Clause No.

(BD 2013) Figure No.

Vertical reinforcement:

The minimum and maximum percentages of vertical reinforcement ρl

based on the concrete cross-sectional area of a wall are 0.4% and 4%

respectively.

Two layers of vertical reinforcement are recommended.

Vertical bar spacing sl shall not exceed three times the wall thickness

bw or 400 mm, whichever is the lesser.

9.6.2

2.1 Horizontal reinforcement:

Where the main vertical reinforcement is used to resist compression

and does not exceed 2% of the concrete area, at least the following

percentages of horizontal reinforcement ρh should be provided:

(a) fyh,k = 250 N/mm2: 0.30% of concrete cross-sectional area; and

(b) fyh,k = 500 N/mm2: 0.25% of concrete cross-sectional area.

9.6.3

30

Reinforcement spacing sh should be evenly spaced at no more than

400 mm. The diameter h should be not less than one-quarter of the size

of the vertical bars l and not less than 8 mm.

Transverse reinforcement:

When the vertical compression reinforcement exceeds 2%, links with a

diameter t at least 8 mm or one-quarter the size of the largest

compression bar should be provided through the thickness of the wall.

The spacing of links st should not exceed twice the wall thickness bw in

either the horizontal or vertical direction.

In the vertical direction it should be not greater than 16 times the bar

diameter t.

All vertical compression bars should be enclosed by a link.

No bar should be further than 200 mm from a restrained bar, at which

a link passes round the bar at an included angle of not more than 90°.

9.6.4

31

h ≥ l /4 and 8 mm, l is the diameter of vertical bars

(a) ρl ≤ 2%

Wall elevation

Wall sections

Figure 2.1 Reinforcement requirements for conventional RC walls

sh ≤ 400 mm

sl ≤ 400 mm and 3bw

0.4% ≤ ρl ≤ 4%

hw ≥ 4bw

when ρl ≤ 2% and fyh,k =250 mm, ρh ≥ 0.3%


5l but ≥

50 mm

t

5l but ≥

50 mm

t

10l but ≥

70 mm

t

Longitudinal reinforcement:

Horizontal reinforcement:

bw

135o hook, see Detail A

(b) ρl > 2%

Note: vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement ≤ 2bw and 16t


st ≤ 2bw

t ≥ l / 4 and 8 mm

≤ 200 mm


10l but ≥

70 mm

t

Detail A, 135o hook

Detail B, 150o hook

Detail C, 180o hook

Detail D, 90o hook

32

Table 2.2. Critical zones and design requirements for ductile walls adjoining a transfer structure



Critical zones

(1) Walls supported by a transfer structure with one storey above

the transfer structure:

The critical zone should extend from the top surface of the

transfer structure to the ceiling of the first floor above the

transfer structure.

(2) Walls supported by a transfer structure with more than one

storey above the transfer structure:

The critical zone should extend from the top surface of the

transfer structure to the ceiling of the second floor above the

transfer structure.

(3) Walls supporting a transfer structure with a height not

exceeding 15 m:

The critical zone should extend from the support of the wall to

the soffit of the transfer structure.

(4) Walls supporting a transfer structure with a height exceeding

15 m:

The critical zone should extend from the soffit of the transfer

structure supported by the wall to 15 m below or four times the

larger wall sectional dimension, whichever is the greater.

N.A. 2.2

Axial compression ratio

when 0.4% < DIDR ≤ 0.65%, Ncr ≤ 0.55;

when DIDR ≤ 0.40%, Ncr ≤ 0.75.

N.A. N.A.

Confined boundary elements

The extent of this confined boundary element is illustrated in Fig. 2.3.

This confined boundary element should be provided with vertical

reinforcement satisfying the following requirements (Fig. 2.4):

(1) ρl should not be less than 1% of the sectional area of the

structural boundary element;

(2) ρl should not be more than 2% when 0.4% < DIDR ≤ 0.65%;

(3) l is not smaller than 16 mm and the number of bars is not less

than six;

(4) spacing sl should not exceed 150 mm;

(5) each vertical bar is tied with links or ties of at least 12 mm

9.9.3.2 2.3 and 2.4

33

diameter and vertical spacing should not exceed 150 mm; and

(6) links and ties should be adequately anchored by means of

135o hooks. Where there is adequate confinement to prevent

the end anchorage of the link from “kick off”, the 135o hook

may be replaced by other standard hooks.

Unconfined web




respectively.

When 0.4% < DIDR ≤ 0.65%, ρl ≤ 2%;


Vertical bar spacing sl shall not exceed three times the wall thickness

bw or 400 mm, whichever is the lesser.

9.6.2

2.4


Where the main vertical reinforcement is used to resist compression

and does not exceed 2% of the concrete area, at least the following





400 mm. The diameter h should be not less than one-quarter of the size

of the vertical bars l and not less than 8 mm.

9.6.3



diameter t at least 8 mm or one-quarter the size of the largest




In the vertical direction, it should be not greater than 16 times the bar

diameter t.


No bar should be further than 200 mm from a restrained bar, at which a

link passes round the bar at an included angle of not more than 90°.

9.6.4

34

Figure 2.3 Confined boundary elements (a) hidden column, (b) edge column, (c) wing wall and

(d) L-shaped wall

b1

≥ b1 and 400 mm

≥ 2b1 and 300 mm b2

b1

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

b1

bc ≥ 2b1 300 mm

hc ≥ 2b1

≥ 2b1 and 300 mm b2

b1

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Confined zone

Floor above transfer structure

1st

2nd

3rd

Transfer structure

More than one storey above transfer structure

Transfer structure

≤ 15 m

Transfer level not exceeding 15 m

Transfer structure

One storey above transfer structure

Critical zones

Figure 2.2 Critical zones of walls adjoining a transfer structure

15 m

4hw

Transfer structure

Transfer level exceeding 15 m

More than one storey above transfer structure

hw

max

35


Wall elevation

Wall sections

Figure 2.4 Reinforcement requirements for ductile RC walls

sh ≤ 400 mm

sl ≤ 400 mm and 3bw 0.4% ≤ ρl ≤ 4% when DIDR ≤ 0.4%

hw ≥ 4bw





bw


180o hook, see Detail C

90o hook, see Detail D



l ≥ 16 mm, not less than six bars, sl ≤ 150

mm

Transverse reinforcement: t ≥ 12 mm

st ≤ 150 mm

Confined Zone

Unconfined Web

t ≥ 12 mm

Confined zone

Confined zone

ρl ≥ 1%,

ρl ≤ 2% when 0.4% < DIDR ≤ 0.65%,

ρl ≤ 2% when 0.4% <DIDR ≤ 0.65%

5l but ≥

50 mm

t

10l but ≥

70 mm

t 10l but ≥

70 mm

t 5l but ≥

50 mm

t

(150o hook)

Detail B

(135o hook)

Detail A

(180o hook)

Detail C

(90o hook)

Detail D

(Crossties should be alternated end

for end along the longitudinal bars)

36

2.4 Coupling beams

Coupling beams are used to connect shear walls with openings such as windows, corridors and stairs.

Their span-to-depth ratios are usually smaller than 4. They are subjected to moments and shears under

seismic actions in the plane of their walls. According to the predicted seismic demand of wall buildings in

Hong Kong during a rare earthquake, the maximum chord rotation demand of coupling beams is 1%,

which is less than the minimum chord rotation capacity of 1.5% taken from past experimental results.

Hence, yielding but not failure of coupling beams in wall buildings is expected. The RC detailing

provisions of conventional RC coupling beams are presented in Table 2.3.

The Hong Kong Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013 (BD 2013) does not separately

provide detailing provisions for floor beams and coupling beams. As potential plastic hinges may form at

the beam ends and the size of these plastic hinges extends over almost the entire length of the beam, this

Guide suggests adopting the ductile requirements of the critical region of the RC floor beams for coupling

beams.

Furthermore, in order to ensure the coupling beams have limited ductility capacity without premature

brittle failure, the shear capacity of the beam should be designed to be higher than its flexural capacity.

The minimum thickness of the coupling beams should be at least 250 mm to allow wall and beam

reinforcement to be properly fixed and the concrete placed (SRIA, 2015) (see Fig. 2.5).

Table 2.3. Conventional coupling beam detailing requirements




The minimum and maximum percentages of longitudinal

reinforcement ρl based on the concrete cross-sectional area of a

coupling beam are 0.3% and 2.5% respectively (clause 9.9.1.2).

The clear horizontal distance between adjacent longitudinal bars

should not exceed 70,000 βb/fyl ≤ 300 mm, where βb and fyl are the

redistribution ratio and estimated service stress in the longitudinal

reinforcement respectively, as defined in clause 9.2.1.4.

Curtailment of the longitudinal reinforcement is not

recommended.

The minimum anchorage length is recommended to be 1.4 lb,

where lb is the ultimate anchorage bond length.

9.2.1.4 and 9.9.1.2

2.5 Transverse reinforcement:

The centre-to-centre spacing of links sv along a beam shall not

exceed the larger of 150 mm or eight times the longitudinal bar

diameter l (clause 9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, the horizontal spacing should be such

that no longitudinal tension bar is more than 150 mm from a vertical

leg (clause 9.2.2).

Links should be adequately anchored by means of 135o, 150o or

180o hooks, in accordance with clause 8.5.

8.5, 9.2.2 and

9.9.1.3

Side bars for beams exceeding 750 mm overall depth:

The minimum diameter of the bars must be ≥ √(sb bb/fyw,k), where sb ≤

250 mm is the bar spacing, bb is the beam width, or 500 mm if bb

exceeds 500 mm, and fyw,k is the characteristic yield strength of the

9.2.1.2

37

side bar.

135o hook

hb

Wall rebars

Section

Figure 2.5 Reinforcement requirements for conventional coupling beams

Elevation

0.3% ≤ ρl ≤ 2.5%

Longitudinal bars:

sb ≤ 250 mm

1.4lb

sv ≤ 150 mm or 8l

Side bars required

when hb > 750 mm

Link spacing:

bb ≥ 250 mm

38

2.5 RC columns

The detailing provisions are applicable to conventional columns in which the larger dimension hc is not

greater than four times the smaller dimension bc. The detailing requirements for the seismic design of

conventional columns are summarised in Table 2.4 and Fig. 2.6.

Table 2.4. Detailing requirements of conventional RC columns






vertically-cast column are 0.8% and 6.0% respectively.

The bar diameter l should not be less than 12 mm.

The minimum number of longitudinal bars in a column should be four

in rectangular columns and six in circular columns. In columns with a

polygonal cross-section, at least one bar should be placed at each corner.

At the laps, the sum of the reinforcement sizes in a particular layer

should not exceed 40% of the breadth of the section at that location.

9.5.1

2.6

General requirements of transverse reinforcement:

The diameter of the transverse reinforcement t should not be less

than 8 mm or one-quarter of the diameter of the largest longitudinal bar

l, whichever is the greater.

The spacing of transverse reinforcement st along a column should not

exceed the least of the following:

(a) 12 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar;

(b) the lesser dimension of the column;

(c) 300 mm.

9.5.2.1

Transverse reinforcement for rectangular or polygonal columns:

All corner bars and alternate bars (or bundles) in an outer layer of

reinforcement should be supported by links, with or without crossties,

passing around the bars and have an included angle of not more than

135o. No bar within a compression zone should be further than 150 mm

from a restrained bar.

Links should be adequately anchored by means of hooks bent

through an angle of not less than 135o. Crossties should be adequately

anchored by means of hooks bent through an angle of not less than 135o

at one end and 90o at the other end, and should be alternated end for end

along the longitudinal bars.

9.5.2.2

Transverse reinforcement for circular columns:

Spiral transverse reinforcement should be anchored by either welding to

the previous turn, in accordance with clause 8.7, or by terminating the

spiral with at least a 90º hook bent around a longitudinal bar and the

hook being no more than 25 mm from the previous turn.

9.5.2.3

39

Circular links should be anchored by either a mechanical connection or

a welded lap, in accordance with clause 8.7, or by terminating each end

of the link with at least a 90º hook bent around a longitudinal bar and

overlapping the other end of the link.

Spiral or circular links should not be anchored by straight lapping.

H

l ≥ 12 mm


0.8% ≤ ρl ≤ 6%

Elevation Section

≤ 150 mm

hc ≤ 4bc

bc

135o hook

180o hook

90o hook

Alternate crossties

Figure 2.6 Reinforcement requirements for conventional RC columns

90o hook

L.L.


st ≤

12l,min

min(bc, hc)

300 mm

t ≥

l,max/4

8 mm

L.L. – Lap length

40

2.6 Frame beams

The detailing provisions described below are applicable to conventional frame beams of normal

proportions. Deep beams are not considered. For the design of deep beams, reference should be made to

specialist literature. The detailing requirements of beams are summarised in Table 2.5 and Fig. 2.7.

Table 2.5. Detailing requirements of conventional RC frame beams




The minimum percentages of longitudinal reinforcement appropriate

for various conditions of loading are given in Table 9.1 (clause

9.2.1.1) (BD 2013).

The maximum percentages of longitudinal reinforcement should not

exceed 4% of the gross cross-sectional area of the concrete (clause

9.2.1.3).

At the laps, the sum of the diameter of all reinforcement bars in a

particular layer should not exceed 40% of the breadth of the section at

that location (clause 9.2.1.3).

The maximum clear distance between adjacent bars in tension




9.2.1

2.7


The maximum spacing of the links in the direction of the span

should not exceed 0.75d. At right-angles to the span, the horizontal

spacing should be such that no longitudinal tension bar is more than

150 mm from a vertical leg.


180o hooks. Where there is adequate confinement to prevent the end

anchorage of the link from “kick off”, the 135o hook may be replaced

by other standard anchorages.

9.2.2 and 9.9.1.3

41

Minimum steel percentages according to

Table 9.1 (BD 2013), maximum steel ≤ 4%

Longitudinal bars:

sv ≤ 0.75d Link spacing:

A

A

Figure 2.7 Reinforcement requirements for conventional RC frame beams

135o hook

90o hook

Section A-A

h

b

clear spacing of bars near the tension face: s ≤ min (70,000 βb/fyl, 300 mm)

d

≤ 150

s

tension bar is not more than

150 mm from a vertical leg

Note: unless otherwise specified, units are in mm.

42

2.7 RC beam-column joints

The detailing provisions summarised in Table 2.6 and Figs. 2.8 and 2.9 are applicable to beam-column

joints. In the detailing requirements, at least 50% of the shear resistance in the joint is provided by the

reinforcement in the form of hoops to confine the concrete core. A beam-column joint is considered to be

restrained if the joint is laterally supported on four sides by beams of approximately equal depth.

Any joint which is not part of the primary seismic force-resisting wall system need not satisfy the

following provisions for joint detailing requirements.

Table 2.6. Detailing requirements of beam-column joints



Vertical joint shear reinforcement:

Centre-to-centre spacing svj of the vertical joint shear reinforcement

in either direction should not exceed 200 mm or one-quarter of the

lateral dimension of the joint bj in the orthogonal direction, whichever is

the larger.

Each vertical face of the joint should be provided with at least one

vertical joint shear bar.

Intermediate column bars at each side within the beam-column

joint can act as vertical joint shear reinforcement.

6.8.1.6

2.8

Horizontal transverse reinforcement:

The diameter of the horizontal transverse reinforcement t should not

be less than 8 mm or one-quarter of the diameter of the largest column

bar l, whichever is the greater.

The spacing of transverse reinforcement st in the joint core should not


(a) ten times the diameter of the smallest column bar;

(b) 200 mm

(c) one-quarter of the beam depth.

At least 50% of the shear resistance provided by the

reinforcement should be in the form of hoops. The remaining

reinforcement could be in the form of crossties or U-bars with

proper anchorages within the connecting beams.

6.8.1.7

Where there is adequate confinement to prevent the end anchorage of

the link from “kick off”, the 135o or 180o hook in the links or crossties

may be replaced by a 90o hook.

9.5.2.2 2.9

43

Figure 2.9 Confined and unconfined concrete regions of a beam-column joint

confined concrete. Links within this area may be anchored by 90o hooks.

unconfined concrete. Links within this area should be anchored by 135o or 180o hooks.

cover Section

90o hook

bj – lateral joint dimension

h – depth of beam

l – diameter of column bars

t – diameter of horizontal transverse reinforcement

lb – ultimate anchorage bond length

Figure 2.8 Reinforcement requirements for beam-column joints

st ≤

10l,min

200 mm

h/4

Vertical joint bars:

svj ≤ bj/4

200 mm

at least one vertical joint bar

Intermediate

column bars act

as vertical joints

bars


At least 50% of the

shear resistance is

provided by links.

t ≥ l/4

8 mm

Elevation

≥ max(1.4lb, 2h)

≥ lb

crossties

U-bars

Section

links

135o hook

U-bars

44

2.8 References

ACI 318 (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary,

ACI Committee 318, USA.

ASCE (2002). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7-02. American Society

of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.


the HKSAR.

CTBUH (2008). Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings, Council of Tall

Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, IL.

Fanella DA (2007). Seismic detailing of concrete buildings, 2nd Edition, Portland Cement Association,

Illinois, USA.

Greifenhagen C and Lestuzzi P (2005). Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced concrete shear walls,

Engineering Structures, 27(11), pp. 1703-1712.

Hilson CW, Segura CL and Wallace JW (2014). Experimental study of longitudinal reinforcement

buckling in reinforced concrete structural wall boundary elements. Proceedings of the Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (10NCEE), Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering. July

21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska.

Ho JCM (2003). Inelastic Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams and Limited Ductile High-Strength

Concrete Columns, PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Huang K (2003). Design and Detailing of Diagonally Reinforced Interior Beam-Column Joints for

Moderate Seismicity, PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Hube MA, Marihuén A, de la Llera JC and Stojadinovic B (2014). Seismic behavior of slender reinforced

concrete walls. Engineering Structures, 80, pp. 377-388.

Kuang JS and Ho YB (2007). Enhancing ductility of non-seismically designed RC shear walls,

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures & Buildings, 160 (SB3), pp. 139-149.

Kuang JS and Ho YB (2008). Seismic behavior and ductility of squat RC shear walls with nonseismic

detailing. ACI Structural Journal, 105(2), pp. 225-231.

Kuang JS and Wong HF (2005). Improving ductility of non-seismically designed RC columns,

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 158 (4), pp. 13-20.

Lam SSE, Wu B, Wong YL, Wang ZY, Liu ZQ and Li CS (2003). Drift capacity of rectangular

reinforced concrete columns with low lateral confinement and high-axial load, Journal of Structural

Engineering ASCE, 129(6), pp. 733-741.

45

LATBSDC (2011). An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located

in the Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, USA.

Leung KT, Tse KL, Lau LS, Wong KH, Lee KH, Lam JYK, Zhang HY and Zhou XY (2016). Recent

study on seismic evaluation of existing buildings – a Hong Kong Perspective, Proceedings of the Joint

Structural Division Annual Seminar 2016, Structural Excellence – From Research to Application, The

Hong Kong Institution of Engineers and The Institution of Structural Engineers, 12 January 2016, Hong

Kong, pp35-67.

Li J (2003). Effects of Diagonal Steel Bars on Performance of Interior Beam-Column Joints Constructed

with High-Strength Concrete, PhD Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

NRC (2010). National Building Code of Canada (NBCC); Part 4: Structural design, Canadian

Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), Ottawa, Canada.

SRIA (2015). Guide to Seismic Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Australia, Steel

Reinforcement Institute of Australia, Roseville, New South Wales, Australia.

Wong HF and Kuang JS (2008). Effects of beam-column depth ratio on joint seismic behaviour,

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures & Buildings, 161 (SB2), pp. 91-101.

Xiong ZH (2001). Reinforced Concrete Column Behaviour Under Cyclic Loading, PhD Thesis, The

University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

46

3 DUAL SYSTEMS

3.1 Scope

The detailing provisions described herein apply to RC buildings not taller than 300 m, with moment

resisting frames together with structural walls acting as the primary earthquake force-resisting system. In

this structural system, vertical loads are mainly supported by a spatial frame and lateral loads are resisted

by the combined contribution of frames and walls (coupled, uncoupled or core). The main advantages of

this structural system are that, first, frames interacting with walls can provide a significant amount of

energy dissipation; second, the large lateral stiffness of walls can easily control the IDR demand; and,

third, the development of a soft storey mechanism involving column hinges can be avoided.

Under occasional earthquake, the maximum BCR and IDR demands of frame-wall buildings (with or

without transfer structures) should not be greater than 1.0% and 0.80% respectively.

Under rare earthquake, when no-collapse limit state is explicitly considered, the BCR and IDR demands

of frame-wall buildings are increased to 2.0% and 1.5% respectively.

As the seismic IDR or DIDR demand of a dual structural system in a soil site is already very high, the use

of a transfer structure is not recommended. If the use of a transfer structure is unavoidable, one should

consider transferring the column loads rather than the wall loads as RC frames are considerably more

deformable than structural walls and the shear localisation effect near the transfer structure is smaller for

columns. When a transfer structure is utilised, the in-plane local rotations of the transfer structure due to

gravity loads should be limited to 0.1%, and the DIDR should not exceed 0.80% under occasional

earthquake events and 1.5% under rare earthquake actions.

The detailing provisions presented in this Chapter aim to provide sufficient drift ratio capacity for the RC


Under extreme conditions, when the drift ratio demand of wall is higher than the anticipated deformation

demand under rare earthquake load, drift ratio prediction formulas are given in Section 3.8 to aid seismic

detailing of rectangular walls.


Under seismic action, a frame will deform primarily in a shear mode, whereas a wall will behave in the

manner of a vertical cantilever with primary flexural deformations (see Fig. 3.1). Floor slabs usually act

as a diaphragm, transmitting inertia forces generated by earthquake actions at a given level to all

horizontal-force-resisting members. The slabs should be designed to respond elastically as they are

ineffective at dissipating energy through the formation of plastic regions. The restraints provided by the

slabs cause the frames and walls at each level to move together. The interaction of the two different

deformation modes leads to the walls and frames sharing the resistance of storey shears in the lower

storeys, but tend to oppose each other at higher levels (see Fig. 3.2). The load distribution between frames

and walls is strongly dependent on the dynamic response characteristics and the development of plastic

hinges during a rare earthquake (Paulay and Priestley, 1992).

47

Fig. 3.3 sets out some of the more preferable and practical energy-dissipating mechanisms for the dual

system. For a building designed with a weak beam / strong column principle, as shown in Fig. 3.3(a),

plastic hinges are formed in all the beams and at the base of all vertical members. Thus the complicated

construction of the lapping of vertical reinforcement at the middle height of columns in upper levels can

be avoided. However, when long-span beams are used, the strength of beams is typically greater than that

of columns, and as such it may be preferable to allow the development of plastic hinges at both ends of

the columns (Fig. 3.3(b)).

The typically large stiffness variation between the frame and the wall implies that the wall yields at a

lower lateral displacement than does the frame. The subsequent stiffness and strength degradations of the

wall cause the redistribution of lateral force between the wall and frame as the lateral displacement

increases. Hence, the proportion of base shear carried by the frame will be increased at the no-collapse

limit state. The American Standard ASCE 07-10 (ASCE 2010) requires that the frames of the shear wall-

frame interactive system should be capable of resisting at least 25% of the design storey shear of each

storey.

Dynamic analysis is recommended to evaluate the seismic response of a building. When the predicted

maximum IDR demand is higher than 1% in the no-collapse limit state, the structural response should be

evaluated using non-linear time history analysis.

flexural

mode

shear

mode

combined

deformation

+ =

Seismic load Wall Frame Dual system

Figure 3.1 Interaction of a frame-wall system under seismic loads

48

Despite the strength design, appropriate seismic details should be provided to enhance the deformability

of structural walls. The drift capacity of structural walls primarily depends on the failure mode, the SDR,

the ALR and the reinforcement arrangements. In order to ensure a wall will have sufficient deformability

against rare earthquake loads, brittle shear failures should be avoided when conducting no-collapse limit

state checks. In other words, the seismic shear capacity of walls should be higher than the seismic shear

demand associated with rare earthquake loads. When plastic hinges are expected to form in walls during

an earthquake attack, the shear capacity of the walls should be higher than the corresponding flexural

capacity, so as to promote a flexural ductile failure mechanism.

Total shear

Frame shear

Wall shear Wall moment

Frame

moment

Total moment

Figure 3.2 Internal force distributions in wall and frame (a) overturning moment and

(b) storey shear

(a) (b)

Figure 3.3 Preferable energy dissipating mechanisms for dual system with a (a) weak beam /

strong column arrangement and (b) strong beam / weak column arrangement

(a) (b)

Potential plastic hinge

49

3.3 Structural walls

The detailing provisions described here refer to ductile RC walls with a length to thickness ratio of 4 or

more and in which the section and reinforcement have been designed to resist seismic forces.

The ALR should not exceed 0.1. Such a small ALR can enhance drift capacity and minimise the potential

risk of the compression failure of walls under severe earthquake loads.

The extent of confined boundary elements of ductile RC walls is defined in Fig. 3.4. The vertical,

horizontal and transverse detailing requirements for ductile RC walls are summarised in Table 3.1 and

Fig. 3.5. Reinforcement provided for shear strength should be continuous and uniformly distributed

across the shear plane. The uniform distribution of reinforcement across the height and horizontal length

of the wall helps control the width of inclined cracks. For walls subjected to substantial in-plane shear

forces, two layers of reinforcement should be provided in order to reduce the fragmentation and

premature deterioration of the concrete under load reversals into the inelastic range (Fanella, 2007).

Table 3.1. Detailing requirements for ductile RC walls



Shear span-to-depth ratio

The shear span-to-depth ratio should not be less than 2.0.

N.A. N.A.

Axial compression ratio

The axial compression ratio Ncr should not exceed 0.325.

N.A. N.A.

Confined boundary elements

The extent of this confined boundary element is illustrated in Fig. 3.4.

This confined boundary element should be provided with vertical

reinforcement satisfying the following requirements (Fig. 3.5):

(1) ρl should not be less than 1% of the sectional area of the structural

boundary element;

(2) ρl should not be more than 2%;

(3) l should not be smaller than 16 mm and the number of bars

should not be less than six;

(4) spacing sl should not exceed 150 mm;

(5) each vertical bar should be tied with links or ties of at least 12 mm

diameter, and vertical spacing should not exceed 150 mm; and

(6) links and ties should be adequately anchored by means of 135o

hooks. Where there is adequate confinement to prevent the

end anchorage of the link from “kick off”, the 135o hook may

be replaced by other standard hooks.

9.9.3.2 3.4 and 3.5

50

Unconfined web




respectively.


Vertical bar spacing sl shall not exceed three times the wall thickness bw

or 400 mm, whichever is the lesser.

9.6.2

3.5


Where the main vertical reinforcement is used to resist compression and

does not exceed 2% of the concrete area, at least the following





400 mm. The diameter h should be not less than one-quarter of the size of

the vertical bars l and not less than 8 mm.

9.6.3



diameter of t and at least 8 mm or one-quarter the size of the largest




In the vertical direction, it should be not greater than 16 times the bar

diameter t.


No bar should be further than 200 mm from a restrained bar, at which a

link passes round the bar at an included angle of not more than 90°.

9.6.4

51

Figure 3.4 Confined boundary elements (a) hidden column, (b) edge column, (c) wing wall and

(d) L-shaped wall

b1

≥ b1 and 400 mm

≥ 2b1 and 300 mm b2

b1

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

b1

bc ≥ 2b1 300 mm

hc ≥ 2b1

≥ 2b1 and 300 mm b2

b1

≥ 2b2 and 300 mm

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Confined zone

52


Wall elevation

Wall sections

Figure 3.5 Reinforcement requirements for ductile RC walls

sh ≤ 400 mm

sl ≤ 400 mm and 3bw

0.4% ≤ ρl ≤ 2%

hw ≥ 4bw







l ≥ 16 mm, not less than six bars, sl ≤ 150

mm

Transverse reinforcement: t ≥ 12 mm

st ≤ 150 mm

Confined Zone

Unconfined Web

bw


180o hook, see Detail C

90o hook, see Detail D

t ≥ 12 mm

Confined zone

Confined zone

1% ≤ ρl ≤ 2%

5l but ≥

50 mm

t

10l but ≥

70 mm

t 10l but ≥

70 mm

t 5l but ≥

50 mm

t

(150o hook)

Detail B

(135o hook)

Detail A

(180o hook)

Detail C

(90o hook)

Detail D

(Crossties should be alternated end

for end along the longitudinal bars)

53

3.4 Ductile coupling beams

Coupling beams are used to connect shear walls with openings such as windows, corridors and stairs.

Their span-to-depth ratios are usually smaller than 4. They are subjected to moments and shears under

seismic actions in the plane of the wall. According to the predicted seismic demand of buildings with dual

structural systems in Hong Kong during a rare earthquake, the maximum chord rotation demand of

coupling beams is 2.0%, which implies that those coupling beams have been yielded. In order to avoid

complicated diagonal reinforcement, only the RC detailing provisions of orthogonal RC ductile coupling

beams are presented (in Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.6) in this Guide. The interested reader may refer to Moehle

et al. (2012) for details of diagonally reinforced coupling beams.

The Hong Kong Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013 (BD, 2013) does not separately

provide detailing provisions for floor beams and coupling beams. As plastic hinges will potentially form

at the beam ends and the size of the plastic hinges may extend over almost the entire length of the beam,

this Guide adopts the ductile requirements of the critical region of RC floor beams for ductile coupling

beams.

The ultimate chord rotation capacity of RC coupling beams primarily depends on the mode of failure, the

SDR, the shear and the longitudinal reinforcement percentages. To ensure the coupling beams have high

rotational capacity without premature brittle failure, the shear capacity of the beams should be designed to

be higher than their flexural capacity. To achieve the required rotational capacity using orthogonal RC

coupling beams, the available test results demonstrate that the following design conditions should be met

simultaneously: (1) SDR ≥ 0.85, (2) shear reinforcement area ratio ρv ≥ 1.3%, (3) longitudinal

reinforcement area ratio ρl ≤ 0.9% and (4) characteristic concrete cube compressive strength fcu,k ≥ 30

MPa (or the expected concrete cube compressive strength fcu,m ≥ 45 MPa). In addition, the thickness of

the coupling beams should be at least 250 mm so as to allow wall and beam reinforcement to be properly

fixed and the concrete placed (SRIA, 2015).

Table 3.2. Ductile coupling beam detailing requirements




The SDR = M/(Vhb) should not be less than 0.85.

N.A. N.A.




coupling beam are 0.3% and 0.9% respectively (clause 9.9.1.2).

The clear horizontal distance between adjacent longitudinal bars




Curtailment of the longitudinal reinforcement is not

recommended.

The minimum anchorage length is recommended to be 1.4 lb,

where lb is the ultimate anchorage bond length.

9.2.1.4 and 9.9.1.2

3.6

Shear reinforcement:

The minimum percentage of shear reinforcement ρv based on

8.5, 9.2.2 and

9.9.1.3

54

the concrete horizontal-sectional area of a coupling beam is 1.3%.

The centre-to-centre spacing of links sv along a beam shall not

exceed the larger of 150 mm or eight times the longitudinal bar

diameter l (clause 9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, the horizontal spacing should be such

that no longitudinal tension bar is more than 150 mm from a vertical

leg (clause 9.2.2).


180o hooks, in accordance with clause 8.5.

Side bars for beams exceeding 750 mm overall depth:

The minimum diameter of the bars must be ≥ √(sb bb/fyw,k), where sb ≤

250 mm is the bar spacing, bb is the beam width, or 500 mm if bb

exceeds 500 mm, and fyw,k is the characteristic yield strength of the

side bar.

9.2.1.2

3.5 Ductile columns

The ultimate drift ratio of RC columns primarily depends on the mode of failure, the ALR, the SDR and

the transverse reinforcement percentage. In order to ensure that the ultimate drift ratio capacity can reach

2.0%, the SDR should not be less than 2.0 and sufficient transverse reinforcement should be provided to

avoid brittle shear failure prior to ductile flexural failure. In this Guide, the location of potential plastic

hinges is denoted as a critical zone. Laps of longitudinal reinforcement should be located away from the

critical zones. The detailing provisions for the seismic design of ductile columns for which the larger

dimension hc is not greater than four times the smaller dimension bc are summarised in Table 3.3 and

Figs. 3.7.

bb ≥ 250 mm

135o hook

hb

Wall rebars

Section

Figure 3.6 Reinforcement requirements of ductile coupling beams

Elevation

0.3% ≤ ρl ≤ 0.9%

Longitudinal bars:

sb ≤ 250 mm

1.4lb

sv ≤ 150 mm or 8l

Side bars required

when hb > 750 mm

Shear reinforcement:

ρv ≥ 1.3%

55

Table 3.3. Detailing requirements of ductile columns




The shear span-to-depth ratio of columns, which is defined as

M/(V hc), should not be less than 2.0.

N.A. N.A.




vertically-cast column are 0.8% and 4.0% respectively. At the laps, the

reinforcement percentage may be increased to 5.2%. Furthermore, the

sum of the reinforcement sizes in a particular layer of laps should not

exceed 40% of the breadth of the section at that location.

In any row of bars, the smallest bar diameter used should not be less

than two thirds of the largest bar diameter used.

The smallest bar diameter l should not be less than 12 mm.

The minimum number of longitudinal bars in a column should be

four in rectangular columns and six in circular columns. In columns

with a polygonal cross-section, at least one bar should be placed at each

corner.

For longitudinal bars in potential plastic hinge regions, the restrained

(cross-linked) bars should not be spaced further apart between centres

than the larger of one-quarter of the adjacent lateral column dimension

or 200 mm.

Where column bars terminate in beam-column joints or joints

between columns and foundation members, and where a plastic hinge in

the column may be expected, the anchorage of the longitudinal column

bars into the joint region should be assumed to commence at one-half of

the depth of the beam or eight bar diameters l, whichever is less, from

the face at which the column bar enters the beam or foundation member.

When it is shown that a column plastic hinge adjacent to a beam face

cannot occur, the development length should be considered to

commence from the beam face.

Column bars should be terminated in a joint area with a horizontal

90º standard hook or equivalent anchorage device as close to the far face

of the beam as practicably possible, and not closer than three-quarters of

the depth of the beam to the face of entry. Unless a column is designed

to resist only axial forces, the direction of the horizontal leg of the bend

must always be positioned towards the far face of the column.

9.5.1 and 9.9.2.1 3.7

Critical zone:

The extent of a critical zone lcr in columns should commence from the

point of maximum moment over a finite length suggested as follows

(including the zone influenced by the stub effect):

For 0 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.1, the extent of a critical zone is taken as 1.0

9.9.2.2 N.A.

56

times the greater dimension of the cross-section or where the moment

exceeds 0.85 of the maximum moment or one-sixth of the column clear

height at the floor, whichever is larger, where Ag is the gross area of

section, mm2.

For 0.1 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.3, the extent of a critical zone is taken as 1.5



height at the floor, whichever is larger; and

For 0.3 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.6, the extent of a critical zone is taken as 2.0



height at the floor, whichever is larger.

Transverse reinforcement inside critical zones:


than 10 mm or one-quarter of the diameter of the largest longitudinal

bar l,max, whichever is the greater.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, the centre-to-centre spacing of

links or cross-ties st along a column should not exceed the smaller of

eight times the diameter of the longitudinal bar l to be restrained or

150 mm. The arrangement of links or ties within the cross section

should comply with either one of the following requirements:

(i) each longitudinal bar or bundle of bars should be laterally

supported by a link passing around the bar, or

(ii) every corner bar and each alternate longitudinal bar (or bundle)

in the outer layer of reinforcement should be supported by a

link passing around the bar, and no bar within the compression

zone should be further than the smaller of ten times the

diameter of link t or 125 mm from a restrained bar.

For circular columns, the centre-to-centre spacing of spirals or

circular hoops along the column should not exceed the smaller of eight

times the diameter l of the longitudinal bar to be restrained or 150 mm.

Links and ties should be adequately anchored by means of 135o

hooks. Where there is adequate confinement to prevent the end

anchorage of the link from “kick off”, the 135o hook may be replaced by

other standard hooks.

9.9.2.2

3.7

Transverse reinforcement outside critical zones:






(i) 12 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar;

(ii) the lesser dimension of the column;

(iii) 300 mm.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, all corner bars and alternate

9.5.2.2 and

9.5.2.3

57

bars (or bundles) in an outer layer of reinforcement should be supported

by links, with or without crossties, passing around the bars and having

an inclined angle of not more than 135o. No bar within a compression

zone should be further than 150 mm from a restrained bar.

For circular columns, spiral transverse reinforcement should be

anchored by either being welded to the previous turn, in accordance

with clause 8.7, or terminating the spiral with at least a 90º hook bent

around a longitudinal bar and the hook being no more than 25 mm from

the previous turn.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, links should be adequately

anchored by means of hooks bent through an angle of not less than 135o.

Crossties should be adequately anchored by means of hooks bent

through an angle of not less than 135o at one end and 90o at the other

end, and should be alternated end for end along the longitudinal bars.

For circular columns, circular links should be anchored by either a

mechanical connection or a welded lap, in accordance with clause 8.7,

or by terminating each end of the link with at least a 90º hook bent

around a longitudinal bar and overlapping the other end of the link.


58

Elevation

Section

Figure 3.7 Reinforcement requirements of ductile columns

≥ ¾ h A.L.

No plastic hinge

l ≥ 12 mm;

Longitudinal reinforcement

Transverse reinforcement outside critical zones

t ≥ max(l,max/4, 8 mm)

st ≤ min

12l,min

min(bc, hc)

300 mm ½ L.L.

H

≥H/4

0.8% ≤ ρl ≤ 4%

in any row of bars, l,min ≥ ⅔ l,max

h ≥ ¾ h A.L.

≥ min(8l, ½ h)

Plastic hinge

Transverse reinforcement inside critical zones

t ≥ max(l,max/4, 10 mm)

st ≤ min

8l,min

150 mm

lcr

lcr

½ L.L.

L.L. – Lap length; A.L. – Anchorage length

hc

L.L.

≤ 150 mm Outside critical zone

hc

bc Alternate crossties

L.L.

≤ min(8l, 150 mm)

Inside critical zone ≤ min(10t, 125 mm)

≤ max(¼ hc, 200 mm)

≤ max(¼ bc, 200 mm)

restrained bars

Alternate crossties

59

3.6 Ductile frame beams

The detailing provisions described below are applicable to ductile frame beams of normal proportions

with an expected ultimate chord rotation of not less than 2.0%. Deep beams are not considered. For the

design of deep beams, reference should be made to specialist literature. The location of the potential

plastic hinges is denoted as the critical zone. Laps of reinforcement should be located away from the

critical zones. The detailing requirements of ductile beams are summarised in Table 3.4 and Figs. 3.8 and

3.9.

Table 3.4. Detailing requirements of ductile frame beams



Critical zones:

The critical zone is equal to two times the beam depth extending

from the column face.

9.9.1.1 3.8

Longitudinal reinforcement inside the critical zone:



9.2.1.1) and should not be less than 0.3% (clause 9.9.1.2) (BD 2013).

The maximum percentages of tension reinforcement should not


9.9.1.2).

The minimum percentages of compression reinforcement should

not be less than 0.35 of tension reinforcement at the same section.





When longitudinal beam bars are anchored in cores of exterior

columns or beam stubs, the tension anchorage should be deemed to

commence at one-half of the relevant column depth or eight times the

bar diameter l, whichever is less, from the face at which the beam bar

enters the column. Where it can be shown that the critical section of

the plastic hinge is at a distance of at least the beam depth or 500 mm,

whichever is less, from the column face, the anchorage length may be

considered to commence at the column face (clause 9.9.1.2).

No bar should be terminated without a vertical 90o standard hook or

equivalent anchorage device as close as practicably possible to the far

side of the column core, or the end of the beam stub where

appropriate, and not closer than three-quarters of the relevant column

depth to the face of entry (clause 9.9.1.2).

Top beam bars should only be bent down and bottom bars be bent

up (clause 9.9.1.2).

9.2.1.1, 9.2.1.4 and

9.9.1.2 3.8

Longitudinal reinforcement outside the critical zone:



9.2.1.1, 9.2.1.3,

9.2.1.4 and 9.9.1.2 3.8

60

9.2.1.1) (BD 2013).



9.2.1.3).








Transverse reinforcement inside the critical zone:


should not exceed 0.75d (clause 9.2.2) and the larger of 150 mm or

eight times the smallest diameter of the longitudinal bars l,min (clause

9.9.1.3).

Links or ties should be arranged so that every corner and alternate

compression longitudinal bar should be restrained by a leg (clause

9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, the horizontal spacing of legs should not

exceed the smaller of 20 times the diameter of the link t or 250 mm

(clause 9.9.1.3).

Furthermore, no longitudinal tension bar should be located more

than 150 mm from a vertical leg (clause 9.2.2).




by other standard anchorages (Fig. 3.9), as mentioned in clause

9.9.1.3.

9.9.1.3 and 9.2.2

3.8 and 3.9

Transverse reinforcement outside the critical zone:


should not exceed 0.75d (clause 9.2.2), the smaller of the least lateral

dimension of the cross section of the beam or 12 times the smallest bar

diameter of the longitudinal bars l,min (clause 9.9.1.3).


compression longitudinal bar should be restrained by a leg (clause

9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, no longitudinal tension bar should be

more than 150 mm from a vertical leg (clause 9.2.2).





9.9.1.3.

9.9.1.3 and 9.2.2

61

Figure 3.8 Reinforcement requirements for ductile frame beams

sv ≤ max ≤ 0.75d 8l,min

150 mm

Inside the critical zone

Outside the critical zone

Plastic hinge located away

from the column face

≥ min(h, 500 mm)

A.L.

plastic hinge

h

Min. steel according to Table 9.1 and ≥ 0.3%,

Max. tension steel ≤ 4%,

Min. compression steel ≥ 0.35 tension steel.

Longitudinal bars:

sv ≤ min (12l,min, b, h) ≤ 0.75d B

B

h

lcr=2h lcr=2h


Max. tension steel ≤ 4%.

Longitudinal bars:

critical zone

hc

critical zone

≥ min(8l, ½ hc)

≥¾hc

A.L.

A

A

h

b

s ≤ min (70,000 βb/fyl, 300 mm)

d



A-A

≤ 150 mm

135o hook

≤ 150 mm


150 mm from a leg

B-B

horiz. spacing ≤ min(20t, 250 mm)

every corner and alternate

compression longitudinal bar

is restrained by a leg

s ≤ min(70 000 βb/fyl, 300 mm)

135o hook

A.L. – Anchorage Length

62

3.7 RC beam-column joints

The seismic design of beam-column joints should satisfy the following criteria, in accordance with clause

6.8.1.1:

(a) at serviceability limit state, a joint should perform at least as well as the members that it joins; and

(b) at ultimate limit state, a joint should have a design strength sufficient to resist the most adverse load

combinations sustained by the adjoining members.


joints.

Table 3.5. Detailing requirements of beam-column joints (same as Table 2.6)




The centre-to-centre spacing svj of the vertical joint shear

reinforcement in either direction should not exceed 200 mm or one-

quarter of the lateral dimension of the joint bj in the orthogonal

direction, whichever is the larger.



An intermediate column bar at each side within the beam-

column joint can act as vertical joint shear reinforcement.

6.8.1.6

3.10 Horizontal transverse reinforcement:







(b) 200 mm;




6.8.1.7

Figure 3.9 Reinforcement requirements for beams confined with slabs


unconfined concrete. Links within this area should be anchored by 135o hooks.

cover 135o hook

90o hook

63

reinforcement may be in the form of crossties or U-bars with proper

anchorages within the connecting beams.




9.5.2.2 3.11


h – depth of beam




st ≤

10l,min

200 mm

h/4


svj ≤ bj/4

200 mm


Intermediate

column bars act

as vertical joints

bars


At least 50% of the

shear resistance is

provided by links.

t ≥ l/4

8 mm

Elevation

≥ max(1.4lb, 2h)

≥ lb

crossties

U-bars

Section

links

135o hook

U-bars

Figure 3.10 Reinforcement requirements for beam-column joints (same as Fig. 2.8)

Figure 3.11 Confined and unconfined concrete regions of a beam-column joint (same as Fig. 2.9)



cover Section

90o hook

64

3.8 Drift ratio design formulas for rectangular walls

Drift ratio capacity models at 20% reduction in lateral strength were developed by Looi et al. (2016). The

drift ratio capacity of rectangular RC walls at 0.8 of peak capacity can be obtained as follows:

For flexural failure mode

1, 3.17.06.01.0154.1CALR

SDRf

v

uhlmcu

(3.1)

For shear failure mode

1, 3.16.26.01.0500.1CALR

SDRf

v

uhlmcu

(3.2)

where

Nwork is the unfactored design axial load,

M is the end moment,

V is the end shear,

v is the shear stress capacity of the wall section,

Ag is the cross-section area of the wall,

hw is the depth of the wall,

st1, st2 and st3 are the dimensions of confined zone defined in Figs. 3.12.

st is the vertical spacing of hoop steel

fyl,m is the mean yield strength of vertical reinforcement,

fyh,m is the mean yield strength of horizontal reinforcement,

fyt,m is the mean yield strength of hoop reinforcement

fcu,m is the mean concrete compressive strength of a cube,

ρl is the area of vertical reinforcement ratio,

ρh is the area of horizontal reinforcement ratio,

volt , = volume of hoop steel/(st1 st2 st)

)8.0( ,, mcumylll ff is the mechanical ratio of vertical reinforcement,

)8.0( ,, mcumyhhh ff is the mechanical ratio of horizontal reinforcement,

mcu

mytvolt

tf

f

,

,,

8.0

is the mechanical ratio of hoop reinforcement

mcugwork fANALR ,8.0 is the axial load ratio (which should be limited to 0.5),

wVhMSDR is the shear span-to-depth ratio (which should be limited to 2.5), and

tt

t

t

t

s

s

s

sC

1,1min

3

111 .

65

3.9 References

ASCE (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7-10. American

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.


the HKSAR.

Fanella DA (2007). Seismic detailing of concrete buildings, 2nd Edition, Portland Cement Association,

Illinois, USA.

Moehle JP, Ghodsi T, Hooper JD, Fields DC and Gedhada R (2012). Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place

Concrete Special Structural Walls and Coupling Beams – A Guide for Practicing Engineers, Report No.

NIST GCR 11-917-11REV-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of

Commerce, USA.

Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John

Wiley & Sons, New York.

SRIA (2015). Guide to Seismic Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Australia,

Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia, Roseville, New South Wales, Australia.

Looi DTW, Su RKL, Cheng B and Zhou MJ (2016). Ultimate drift prediction models of rectangular squat

RC shear walls, Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and

Materials, Perth, 6-9 December 2016, 6 pages.

Figure 3.12 Definition of the dimensions used in the confined zone

st1

st3c

st2

66

4 FRAME SYSTEMS

4.1 Scope

The detailing provisions described herein apply to regular and normally proportioned RC buildings not

taller than 50 m using moment resisting frames as their primary earthquake force-resisting system. Under

occasional earthquake, the anticipated BCR and IDR demands of regular RC frame buildings are not

greater than 1.4% in either case. Under rare earthquake conditions, when a no-collapse limit state is

explicitly considered, the maximum BCR and IDR demands are increased to 3.0%. If the design drift

demands are higher than those anticipated, design formulas are provided to aid the seismic detailing

design of RC beams and columns.

The detailing provisions presented in this Chapter aim to provide sufficient drift ratio capacity for RC



In a moment resisting frame structural system, vertical and lateral loads are mainly supported by a spatial

frame. As long as non-structural components are properly separated from the structure, their stiffening

and strengthening effects during strong shaking can be ignored. In such case, reliable details should be

adopted for the non-structural walls to prevent the potential out-of-plane failure. When the non-structural

components cannot be separated from the structure, their structural effect, such as shortening the

structural natural period and increasing the lateral stiffness of the frame should be considered in the

seismic analysis. In such case, those non-structural components, e.g. infill partition walls, should be

symmetrically arranged in plan and in elevation to minimise the vertical and torsional irrgularities. In

Hong Kong, the anticipated seismic force and displacement demands of regular RC frames – particularly

those located on soil sites – can be very high, and the use of transfer structures which could further

amplify the local seismic demands is not recommended. Short columns with an SDR below 2.0 should

not be used as shear failure is prone to occur; such failure may lead to a dramatic reduction in gravity load

carrying capacity and potentially lead to the collapse of buildings during strong earthquakes. Hence,

parapet walls should be detached from frame structures so as to avoid turning slender columns into short

columns.

When a building sways during ground shaking, the distribution of damage over the height depends on the

distribution of the IDR. If the building has weak columns, drift tends to concentrate in one or a few

storeys and may exceed the drift capacity of the columns, leading to general frame instability (see

Fig. 1.14(b)). On the other hand, if columns provide a stiff and strong spine over the building height, drift

will be more uniformly distributed, and localised damage will be reduced (see Fig. 1.14(a)). The capacity

design approach, which aims to establish a favourable energy-dissipating mechanism and uniform

distribution of IDR, should be adopted for the seismic design of RC frame buildings in order to reduce the

local deformation demands and avoid premature and soft-storey types of failures. The key features of the

capacity design approach are described herein.

First, undesirable modes of failure associated with concrete failure in structural members are to be

avoided, whereas ductile flexural failure in the form of stable reinforcement yielding is promoted. To

67

achieve this, members are forced to fail in a ductile manner by ensuring the greater capacity of other

possible failure modes. In the potential plastic hinge regions, the area of tension longitudinal

reinforcement is limited to prevent the compressive failure of concrete. Further, sufficient well-anchored

transverse reinforcement is provided in order to properly confine the concrete and restrain the

reinforcement from possible buckling in the critical zone under reversed cyclic seismic loads. This design

philosophy is known as “strong shear/weak moment”.

Second, a favourable hierarchy of member strength in a structure should be established. It is important to

recognise that the columns in a given storey support the weight of the entire building above those

columns, whereas the beams only support the gravity loads of the floor of which they form a part;

therefore, failure of a column is of greater consequence than failure of a beam. Recognising this

behaviour, worldwide seismic design practice normally specifies that columns should be stronger than

beams, with a possible allowance for the expected flexural strength of beams, such that plastic hinges can

form at the beam ends. It should be noted that when calculating the flexural strength of beams, the flange

stiffening effects from the adjacent slabs should be considered. This strong column/weak beam principle

is fundamental to achieving the safe behaviour of frames during strong quakes.

Lastly, the beam-column joint, which is a zone of intersection between beams and columns, is the most

crucial zone in an RC moment resisting frame, and its behaviour has a significant influence on the

response of the structure. The functional requirement of a joint is to enable the adjoining members to

develop and sustain their ultimate capacity. The basic requirement of design is that the joint must be

stronger than the adjoining beams or columns, with possible allowance for the expected strength of beam

reinforcement. It is important to ensure during the initial design phase that the joint size is adequate;

otherwise the column or beam size may subsequently need to be modified to satisfy the joint strength or

anchorage requirements. This design principle is termed “strong joint/weak member”.

For more detailed information on the seismic design procedure of moment resisting frames using the

capacity design approach, the interested reader can refer to Paulay and Priestley (1992).

Figure 4.1 Preferable energy dissipating mechanisms for frames with a (a) weak beam system

and (b) strong beam system

(a) (b)

Potential plastic hinge

68

Following the capacity design approach, some practical energy-dissipating mechanisms without excessive

IDRs should first be selected during the seismic design process. Some of the more preferable mechanisms

for frame systems are illustrated in Fig. 4.1. For the weak beam system, as shown in Fig. 4.1(a), plastic

hinges are formed in all the beams and at the base of all column members. Thus the complicated

construction of the lapping of vertical reinforcement at the middle height of columns at upper levels can

be completely avoided. However, when long-span beams are used, the flexural strength of the beams is

typically much greater than that of the columns and, as such, it may be preferable to allow the

development of plastic hinges at both ends of interior columns (see Fig. 4.1(b). Soft-storey failure is

avoided by providing strong columns along the building envelope.

In the design of simple regular frame buildings, an equivalent static method based on the force reduction

factor approach could be sufficiently accurate for seismic design. However, for frames with significant

irregularities or soil amplification effects, nonlinear static or dynamic analysis should be conducted to

evaluate the seismic response under rare earthquake action. When the predicted maximum drift demand in

the no-collapse limit state is higher than 3.0%, the drift ratio design formulas provided in Section 4.6 may

be used to aid the sectional and reinforcement detailing design of beams and columns.

4.3 Ductile columns

The ultimate drift ratio of RC columns primarily depends on the mode of failure, the ALR, the SDR and

the transverse reinforcement percentage. In order to ensure that the ultimate drift ratio capacity can reach

3.0%, the SDR should not be less than 2.0 and sufficient transverse reinforcement should be provided to

avoid brittle shear failure prior to ductile flexural failure. Furthermore, the transverse reinforcement

percentage at the plastic hinge regions should not be less than 0.4% so as to ensure the required

deformability of the column. In this Guide, the location of potential plastic hinges is denoted as a critical

zone. The laps of longitudinal reinforcement should be located away from the critical zones. The detailing

provisions for the seismic design of ductile columns in which the larger dimension hc is not greater than

four times the smaller dimension bc are summarised in Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.2.

Table 4.1. Detailing requirements of ductile columns




The shear span-to-depth ratio of column, which is defined as

M/(V hc), should not be less than 2.0.

N.A. N.A.




vertically-cast column are 0.8% and 4.0% respectively. At the laps, the

reinforcement percentage may be increased to 5.2%. Furthermore, the

sum of the reinforcement sizes in a particular layer of laps should not

exceed 40% of the breadth of the section at that location.

9.5.1 and 9.9.2.1 4.2

69

In any row of bars, the smallest bar diameter used should not be less

than two thirds of the largest bar diameter used.

The smallest bar diameter l should not be less than 12 mm.

The minimum number of longitudinal bars in a column should be

four in rectangular columns and six in circular columns. In columns

with a polygonal cross-section, at least one bar should be placed at each

corner.

For longitudinal bars in potential plastic hinge regions, the restrained

(cross-linked) bars should not be spaced further apart between centres

than the larger of one-quarter of the adjacent lateral column dimension

or 200 mm.

Where column bars terminate in beam-column joints or joints

between columns and foundation members, and where a plastic hinge in

the column may be expected, the anchorage of the longitudinal column

bars into the joint region should be assumed to commence at one-half of

the depth of the beam or eight bar diameters l, whichever is less, from

the face at which the column bar enters the beam or foundation member.

When it is shown that a column plastic hinge adjacent to the beam face

cannot occur, the development length should be considered to

commence from the beam face.

Column bars should be terminated in a joint area with a horizontal

90º standard hook (or equivalent anchorage device) as close to the far

face of the beam as practicably possible, and not closer than three-

quarters of the depth of the beam to the face of entry. Unless a column

is designed to resist only axial forces, the direction of the horizontal leg

of the bend must always be towards the far face of the column.

Critical zone:

The critical zone lcr in columns should extend from the point of

maximum moment over a finite length, suggested as follows (including

the zone influenced by the stub effect):

For 0 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.1, the extent of the critical zone is taken as 1.0


exceeds 0.85 of the maximum moment or one-sixth of column clear

height at the floor, whichever is larger; where Ag is the gross area of the

section, mm2.

For 0.1 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.3, the extent of the critical zone is taken as 1.5



height at the floor, whichever is larger; and

For 0.3 < N/(Agfcu,k) ≦ 0.6, the extent of the critical zone is taken as 2.0



height at the floor, whichever is larger.

9.9.2.2 N.A.

Transverse reinforcement inside critical zones:

The minimum percentage of transverse reinforcement ρt based on

the concrete sectional area in the critical zone normal to the

reinforcement bars is 0.4%.


than 10 mm or one-quarter of the diameter of the largest longitudinal

9.9.2.2 4.2

70

bar l,max, whichever is the greater.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, the centre-to-centre spacing of

links or cross-ties st along a column should not exceed the smaller of

eight times the diameter of the longitudinal bar l to be restrained or 150

mm. The arrangement of links or ties within the cross section should

comply with either one of the following requirements:

(i) each longitudinal bar or bundle of bars should be laterally

supported by a link passing around the bar, or

(ii) every corner bar and each alternate longitudinal bar (or bundle)

in the outer layer of reinforcement should be supported by a

link passing around the bar, and no bar within the compression

zone should be further than the smaller of ten times the

diameter of link t or 125 mm from a restrained bar.

For circular columns, the centre-to-centre spacing of spirals or

circular hoops along the column should not exceed the smaller of eight

times the diameter l of the longitudinal bar to be restrained or 150 mm.

Links and ties should be adequately anchored by means of 135o

hooks.

Transverse reinforcement outside critical zones:






(i) 12 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar;

(ii) the lesser dimension of the column;

(iii) 300 mm.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, all corner bars and alternate

bars (or bundles) in an outer layer of reinforcement should be supported

by links, with or without crossties, passing around the bars and should

have an included angle of not more than 135o. No bar within a

compression zone should be further than 150 mm from a restrained bar.

For circular columns, spiral transverse reinforcement should be

anchored either by being welding to the previous turn, in accordance

with clause 8.7, or by terminating the spiral with at least a 90º hook bent

around a longitudinal bar, where the hook is no more than 25 mm from

the previous turn.

For rectangular or polygonal columns, links should be adequately

anchored by means of hooks bent though an angle of not less than 135o.

Crossties should be adequately anchored by means of hooks bent

through an angle of not less than 135o at one end and 90o at the other

end, and should be alternated end for end along the longitudinal bars.

For circular columns, circular links should be anchored by either a

mechanical connection or a welded lap, in accordance with clause 8.7,

or by terminating each end of the link with at least a 90º hook bent

around a longitudinal bar and overlapping the other end of the link.


9.5.2.2 and

9.5.2.3 4.2

71

Elevation

Section

Figure 4.2 Reinforcement requirements for ductile columns

≥ ¾ h A.L.

No plastic hinge

l ≥ 12 mm;

Longitudinal reinforcement

Transverse reinforcement outside critical zones

t ≥ max (l,max/4, 8 mm)

st ≤ min

12l,min

min (bc, hc)

300 mm ½ L.L.

H

≥H/4

0.8% ≤ ρl ≤ 4%

in any row of bars, l,min ≥ ⅔ l,max

h ≥ ¾ h A.L.

≥ min(8l, ½ h)

Plastic hinge

Transverse reinforcement inside critical zones

t ≥ max (l,max/4, 10 mm)

st ≤ min

8l,min

150 mm

lcr

lcr

½ L.L.

ρt ≥ 0.4%

L.L. – Lap length; A.L. – Anchorage length

hc

L.L.

≤ 150 mm Outside critical zone

hc

bc Alternate crossties

L.L.

≤ min(8l, 150 mm)

Inside critical zone ≤ min(10t, 125 mm)

≤ max(¼ hc, 200 mm)

≤ max(¼ bc, 200 mm)

restrained bars

Alternate crossties

72

4.4 Ductile frame beams

The detailing provisions described below are applicable to ductile frame beams with normal proportions

exhibiting expected ultimate chord rotations of not less than 3.0%. Deep beams are not considered. For

the design of deep beams, reference should be made to specialist literature. The location of the potential

plastic hinges is denoted as a critical zone. Laps of reinforcement should be located away from the critical

zones. The detailing requirements of ductile beams are summarised in Table 4.2 and Figs. 4.3 and 4.4.

Table 4.2. Detailing requirements of ductile frame beams (same as Table 3.4)



Critical zones:

The critical zone is equal to two times the beam depth extending

from the column face.

9.9.1.1 4.3

Longitudinal reinforcement inside the critical zone:



9.2.1.1) and should not be less than 0.3% (clause 9.9.1.2) (BD 2013).

The maximum percentages of tension reinforcement should not


9.9.1.2).

The minimum percentages of compression reinforcement should

not be less than 0.35 of tension reinforcement at the same section.





When longitudinal beam bars are anchored in cores of exterior

columns or beam stubs, the tension anchorage should be deemed to

commence at one-half of the relevant column depth or eight times the

bar diameter l, whichever is less, from the face at which the beam bar

enters the column. Where it can be shown that the critical section of

the plastic hinge is at a distance of at least the beam depth or 500 mm,

whichever is less, from the column face, the anchorage length may be

considered to commence at the column face (clause 9.9.1.2).

No bar should be terminated without a vertical 90o standard hook or

equivalent anchorage device as near as practicably possible to the far

side of the column core, or the end of the beam stub where

appropriate, and not closer than three-quarters of the relevant column

depth to the face of entry (clause 9.9.1.2).

Top beam bars should only be bent down and bottom bars should

only be bent up (clause 9.9.1.2).

9.2.1.1, 9.2.1.4 and

9.9.1.2 4.3

Longitudinal reinforcement outside the critical zone:



9.2.1.1) (BD 2013).


9.2.1.1, 9.2.1.3,

9.2.1.4 and 9.9.1.2 4.3

73


9.2.1.3).








Transverse reinforcement inside the critical zone:


should not exceed 0.75d (clause 9.2.2) and the larger of 150 mm or

eight times the smallest diameter of longitudinal bars l,min (clause

9.9.1.3).


compression longitudinal bar is restrained by a leg (clause 9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, the horizontal spacing of legs should not

exceed the smaller of 20 times the diameter of link t or 250 mm

(clause 9.9.1.3).

Furthermore, no longitudinal tension bar should be more than

150 mm from a vertical leg (clause 9.2.2).





9.9.1.3.

9.2.2 and 9.9.1.3

4.3 and 4.4

Transverse reinforcement outside the critical zone:


should not exceed 0.75d (clause 9.2.2), the smaller of the least lateral

dimension of the cross section of the beam or 12 times the smallest bar

diameter of the longitudinal bars l,min (clause 9.9.1.3).


compression longitudinal bar is restrained by a leg (clause 9.9.1.3).

At right-angles to the span, no longitudinal tension bar should be

more than 150 mm from a vertical leg (clause 9.2.2).





9.9.1.3.

9.2.2 and 9.9.1.3

74

Figure 4.3 Reinforcement requirements for ductile frame beams (same as Fig. 3.8)

sv ≤ max ≤ 0.75d 8l,min

150 mm

Inside the critical zone

Outside the critical zone

Plastic hinge located away

from the column face

≥ min (h, 500 mm)

A.L.

plastic hinge

h


Max. tension steel ≤ 4%,

Min. compression steel ≥ 0.35 tension steel.

Longitudinal bars:

sv ≤ min (12l,min, b, h) ≤ 0.75d B

B

h

lcr=2h lcr=2h


Max. tension steel ≤ 4%.

Longitudinal bars:

critical zone

hc

critical zone

≥ min(8l, ½ hc)

≥¾hc

A.L.

A

A

h

b

s ≤ min (70,000 βb/fyl, 300 mm)

d



A-A

≤ 150 mm

135o hook

≤ 150 mm


150 mm from a leg

B-B

horiz. spacing ≤ min(20t, 250 mm)

every corner and alternate

compression longitudinal bar

is restrained by a leg

s ≤ min(70 000 βb/fyl, 300 mm)

135o hook

A.L. – Anchorage Length

75

4.5 Beam-column joints

The overall integrity of RC frames depends on the behaviour of beam-column joints. Degradation of

joints during seismic action can result in large lateral deformations, which can cause excessive damage or

even collapse of the frame. In the 1980 El Asnam, the 1985 Mexico, the 1986 San Salvador, and the 1989

Loma Prieta earthquakes, many beam-column joint failures were observed; this was particularly the case

for exterior joints associated with shear and anchorage failures (Paulay and Priestley, 1992).

The seismic design of beam-column joints should satisfy the following criteria, in accordance with

clause 6.8.1.1:

(a) at serviceability limit state, a joint should perform at least as well as the members that it joins; and

(b) at ultimate limit state, a joint should have a design strength sufficient to resist the most adverse load

combinations sustained by the adjoining members.


joints.

Figure 4.4 Reinforcement requirements for beams confined with slabs (same as Fig. 3.9)


unconfined concrete. Links within this area should be anchored by 135o hooks.

cover 135o hook

90o hook

76

Table 4.3. Detailing requirements of beam-column joints (same as Table 2.6)




Centre-to-centre spacing svj of the vertical joint shear reinforcement

in either direction should not exceed 200 mm or one-quarter of the

lateral dimension of the joint bj in the orthogonal direction, whichever is

the larger.



Intermediate column bars located at each side within the beam-

column joint can act as vertical joint shear reinforcement.

6.8.1.6

4.5








(b) 200 mm;




reinforcement may be in the form of crossties or U-bars with proper

anchorages within the connecting beams.

6.8.1.7




9.5.2.2 4.6

77

Wu (2015) and Kong (2015) conducted nonlinear time history analyses of regular RC frames under Hong

Kong rare earthquake conditions in order to evaluate the seismic performance of joints with various

flexural strength ratios between columns and beams. Their results demonstrated that the shear force

demands of interior joints are slightly higher than those of exterior joints for frames designed in

accordance with the strong column/weak beam principle. The empirical formula proposed by Tran et al.

(2014) for predicting the joint shear strength of beam-column joints demonstrated that the shear strength

capacities of exterior empty joints are significantly smaller than those of interior empty joints. Therefore,


h – depth of beam




st ≤

10l,min

200 mm

h/4


svj ≤ bj/4

200 mm


Intermediate

column bars act

as vertical joints

bars


At least 50% of the

shear resistance is

provided by links.

t ≥ l/4

8 mm

Elevation

≥ max(1.4lb, 2h)

≥ lb

crossties

U-bars

Section

links

135o hook

U-bars

Figure 4.5 Reinforcement requirements for beam-column joints (same as Fig. 2.8)

Figure 4.6 Confined and unconfined concrete regions of a beam-column joint (same as Fig. 2.9)



cover Section

90o hook

78

exterior beam-column joints are more vulnerable than interior beam-column joints under seismic action.

When the flexural strengths of the beam and the column adjoining the joint are comparable, the shear

force demands in the beam-column joints will be more critical. Empty exterior joints without transverse

reinforcement are no longer sufficient for resisting rare earthquake actions. However, in frames designed

in accordance with the strong column/weak beam principle, the joint shear demand to strength ratios are

generally small and the joints behave elastically. Empty joints could meet the strength requirement.

The local design code (BD, 2013) assumes that the joint shear is resisted by a strut mechanism

comprising a diagonal concrete strut and a truss mechanism comprising horizontal and vertical joint shear

reinforcement and numerous diagonal concrete struts. The diagonal concrete strut mechanism is further

assumed to contribute at least 50% to the total shear strength capacity, further increasing as the axial

compressive load acting on the joint increases. The influence of confinement stress on the increase in

strength of concrete strut and the reinforcement–concrete bond condition (especially in relation to the

bond between the beam bars and the concrete at the joint core) is conservatively ignored. As the codified

design model can only be used to determine the joint reinforcement but not the strength capacity of beam-

column joints, it is not possible to validate the joint design model through the available experimental

results. As such, a more comprehensive joint shear strength design model, which can be verified by test

results, may need to be developed.

4.6 Drift ratio design formulas for columns and beams

Probabilistic drift capacity models at 20% reduction in lateral strength were developed by Zhu (2005) and

Zhu et al. (2007) based on a Bayesian method (Gardoni et al., 2002). When shear failure mode has been

suppressed by the strong shear/weak moment design principle, and where the SDR is not less than 2.0, the

median prediction of the drift ratio capacity of rectangular RC columns at 0.8 of peak capacity can be

obtained as follows (Zhu et al., 2007):

ALRh

s

f

f

c

t

mcu

mytt

lu 07.0042.0150.0716.0049.0,

,

(4.1)

where

ρl is the area of longitudinal reinforcement ratio,

ρt is the area of transverse reinforcement ratio,

fyt,m is the mean yield strength of transverse reinforcement,

fcu,m is the mean concrete compressive strength of a cube,

st is the vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement,

hc is the depth of a column,

mcug

work

fA

NALR

,8.0 is the axial load ratio,

Nwork is the unfactored design axial load, and

Ag is the cross-section area of a column.

For rectangular RC columns that would fail in shear, the median prediction of the drift ratio capacity of

columns at 0.8 of peak capacity can be expressed as follows (Zhu et al., 2007):

79

ALRVh

M

h

s

cc

ttu 031.0013.0025.002.2 (4.2)

where

M is the end moment, and

V is the end shear.

The empirical formula for estimating the ultimate chord rotations, u , of RC beams without diagonal

reinforcement in a primary seismic resisting system with proper detailing for earthquake resistance

associated with flexure-controlled failure under cyclic or monotonic loading is presented as (BSI, 2005):

]/)[(35.0225.0

,

1

2 ,,25)];9[min(]),01.0max(

);01.0max()[3.0(0107.0 mcmyvv ff

mc

ALR

u SDRf

(4.3)

in which

h is the beam depth;

SDR is the shear span-to-depth ratio at the end section;

ALR is the axial load ratio;

mcmylwlwmyll fff ,,,111 /)( is the total reinforcement ratio of tension (steel ratio of ρl1 and mean

yield strength of fyl1,m) and web longitudinal bars (steel ratio of ρlw and mean yield strength of fylw,m);

mcmyll ff ,,222 / is the reinforcement ratio of compression longitudinal bars (steel ratio of ρl2 and

mean yield strength of fyl2);

f’c,m and fyv,m are the mean concrete cylinder compression strength (MPa) and the mean shear

reinforcement yield strength (MPa) respectively. f’c,m may be assumed to be 0.8fcu,m;

ρv is the area ratio of the transverse reinforcement;

α is the confinement effectiveness factor according to Sheikh and Uzumeri (1982):

)6/

1)(2

1)(2

1(00

2

00 hb

b

h

s

b

s ivv (4.4)

in which sv is the spacing of links along the beam; 0b and 0h are the dimensions of the confined core to

the centre-line of the link; and ib is the centre-line spacing along the section’s perimeter of the

longitudinal bars (indexed by i ) which are engaged by a link corner or a cross-tie (Fig. 4.7).

80

sv

Elevation Section

Figure 4.7 Definitions of dimension parameters for computing confinement effectiveness factor

ho

bo

bi

81

4.7 References


the HKSAR.

BSI (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 3: Assessment and

Retrofitting of Buildings, British Standards Institute, UK.

Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A and Mosalam KM (2002). Probabilistic capacity models and fragility

estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering

Mechanics - ASCE, 128, pp. 1024-1038.

Kong LC (2015). Strength Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints, Final Year Project

Report, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John

Wiley & Sons, New York.

Sheikh SA and Uzumeri SM (1982). Analytical model for concrete confinement in tied columns, Journal

of Structural Division, 108, pp. 2703-2722.

Wu WJ (2015). Strength Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints, MSc Thesis, Department

of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong.

Zhu L (2005). Probabilistic drift capacity models for reinforced concrete columns, MASc thesis,

Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Zhu L, Elwood KJ and Haukaas T (2007). Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing

reinforced concrete columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 133, pp. 1316-1330.

practical design guide on seismic detailing for concrete ... · in general, local reinforced...

Documents